James
|
 posted on 10/5/11 at 04:55 PM |
|
|
Poor old Nazi Max Mosley :D :D :D
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses, behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights."
- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 10/5/11 at 05:09 PM |
|
|
I'm with Mosley on this one!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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.
Spider
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 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.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 10/5/11 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
<<<< CLICK HERE!
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 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?
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
balidey
|
| posted on 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.
Dutch bears have terrible skin due to their clogged paws
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 10/5/11 at 08:28 PM |
|
|
The face book comment are priceless
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 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
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 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
|
| posted on 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]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
