Life after the scandal: First interview with Max Mosley , Jonathan Noble, Autosport, 06.08.2008
"Grown ups just don't care. They say it is none of my business and couldn't care less. There have always been people in F1 who are homosexual and now it is pretty much okay."

Nochtans is nog geen enkele F1-rijder uit de kast gekomen. Geruchten zijn er voldoende. Jarno Trulli, Nico Rosberg, Mark Webber, Ralf Schumacher zouden niet vies zijn van de herenliefde. Ook Lewis Hamilton en wijlen Ayrton Senna kregen te maken met speculaties over hun geaardheid.

Maar een coming-out? Nog niet. Wellicht spelen commerciële en politieke factoren. F1-rijders willen sponsors en dus hun zitje niet verliezen en de Formule 1 racet ook in homo-onvriendelijke staten zoals Bahrein.

A KERS, sistema catalisador e mantenedor de energia cinética, seria uma das soluções que Max Mosley encontrou não apenas para “salvar” ou economizar energia, aproveitando a própria energia que é dispersada do carro nas freadas, mas também para que a Formula 1 saia bem na foto diante dos seus patrocinadores e público, que por tabela desejam ver seu dinheiro aplicado em um esporte que, apesar de sua natureza agressiva frente ao meio ambiente, ao menos tem consciência ecológica.

Existem hoje dois sistemas que a Formula 1 pode adotar: um desenvolvido pela TOYOTA e outro pela Flybrid Systems LLP. No sistema desenvolvido pela Toyota, a energia é absorvida do movimento das rodas e estocada e preservada em baterias como eletricidade. Já no caso da Flybrid Systems, a energia é preservada de sua fonte original, o disco usado para “estocar” a energia, e pode ser reutilizada quando requerida novamente.

Max Mosley em entrevista declarou ter consciência de que a “Formula 1 é um esporte extravagante em sua índole, não apenas na maneira como é gerido e mantido, mas também na maneira como os profissionais que a fazem são pagos além do que seu trabalho realmente vale.” Para combater essa imagem de extravagância, Max pensa que a categoria pode ser mais útil a sociedade ao menos diminuído o seu impacto na natureza.

O problema, no caso dessa consciência ecológica e ambiental que Max deseja expor para a sociedade, é que a economia feita pelo KERS é ínfima diante do maciço consumo de um motor de Formula 1. Max, ao que parece, não sabe que para se manufaturar todo o sistema da KERS é preciso gastar mais energia, e energia suja. No caso do sistema desenvolvido pela TOYOTA, são necessários dez galões de óleo para pô-lo em funcionamento, o que significa também mais peso acrescido ao carro e conseqüentemente mais energia para pô-lo em movimento, o que quer dizer mais gasolina também.

A questão, obviamente revela o quanto o Max é despreparado para gerir a Formula 1, algo que me leva a pensar que a solução de Max esconde uma inconveniente verdade.

Aqui no Brasil, nós sabemos que apenas uma pequena mudança de motores que não requeiram combustível fóssil seria o suficiente para satisfazer os movimentos de preservação ambiental, mas explique isso para o Max Mosley e para gigantes como Shell, Esso, Elf e outras grandes corporações petroquímicas que investem maciçamente na Formula 1.

There have been a few occasions in my life when I have felt a twinge of jealousy for our fairy friends - like J Lo's nipple tweaker or the dress maker who had to hold Kelly Brook's tit while it was taped into an outfit. But nine times out of ten I am more than happy with the pink tardis.

 
After watching Gok for half an hour I couldn't have more respect for the guy/gal/whatever. Gok's a fucking pimp. When my truck load of Estonian girls finally arrives I thought it was going to take me a week to break em down and pimp them out, Gok did it in half an hour and without beating them with a coat hanger. The GGW goes up to them, grabs their boobs, says ‘let's get these out', makes them wear lingerie that would put Jodie Marsh to shame, and they fucking love him for it. To top it all off he even got them to stand in a shop window naked, made Oxford Street look like my favourite part of Amsterdam.

Just tried the same action on my squeeze and you can guess the result, yes I am writing this rather then being balls deep in my new pimped out ho.

Hail to the Gok dirt track riding pimp.

Voor Max Mosley, voorzitter van de Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), maakt het niet uit of iemand homo is, zolang hij zijn werk goed doet. De 68-jarige Brit doet deze uitspraak in de nasleep van SM-schandaal rond zijn eigen persoon.

Mosley werd door tabloid News of the World beschuldigd van SM-seks met hoertjes. NOTW filmde hem terwijl hij en de prostituees een 'nazi-strafkampscène' in het Duits naspeelden. Hij gaf toe met de vrouwen SM-seks te hebben gehad, maar ontkende de nazi-ondertoon. Mosleys vader Sir Oswald Mosley was een Britse fascistische leider in het Interbellum.

De FIA-president trok naar de rechter en kreeg gelijk. NOTW werd veroordeeld en moet een boete betalen van 60.000 pond.

Homoseks niet meer illegaal?

Woensdag vertelde hij journalisten dat de tijden veranderd zijn. Als voorbeeld neemt hij homoseksualiteit. Tot in de jaren '60 was sodomie in het Verenigd Koninkrijk strafbaar, nu niet meer.

Mosley to focus on green issues , Jonathan Noble, Autosport.com, 30.07.2008.
"The truth of the matter is this – that no grown up person gives the slightest damn about what other people do in their sex lives. It is not even a subject for discussion. It used to be 50 years ago that if someone was gay then it was a big drama. In England it was illegal and you could go to prison. But all that is now finished – people don't care."

Helaas is Mosley te optimistisch. Homoseksualiteit is nog in 80 landen strafbaar. Soms riskeren homo's de doodstraf. En dat belet sportlui ook hun coming-out te doen.

In verschillende landen ijveren homobewegingen voor de aanvaarding van holebi sportlui in de ploeg, bij de concurrenten en in de fans. Een terecht en nobel doel, maar het uitblijven van coming-out van internationaal bekende topsportlui heeft minder te maken met de mentaliteit in de ploeg en bij fans dan met pragmatische problemen.

Kleine wereld

De wereld is klein geworden. Overal ter wereld worden grote sportevenementen georganiseerd. De Grote Prijs Formule 1 van Bahrein, wilrennen in Qatar, tennis in Dubai, rally in Kenia, voetbal in Afrika…

Sportlui genieten niet van diplomatieke immuniteit.

Om in de Formule 1 te blijven, een voorbeeldje. Bahrein wil homovrij worden. Stel dat een F1-piloot zijn coming-out zou doen. Zou hij dan nog een visum krijgen? Niet zeker. En welk team zou een rijder aantrekken die niet overal kan racen? De carrière van de coureur zou snel voorbij zijn. Dat risico kunnen topsporters niet zomaar nemen. De koninklijke familie van Bahrein is by the way voor 30% aandeelhouder van McLaren-Mercedes. Zouden Ron Dennis & co nu een homoseksuele piloot kunnen aantrekken?

Dus, Mister Mosley. Niet overal is homoseks wettelijk toegelaten. Misschien moet u daar met organisatoren van Grote Prijzen over praten. U kan erover meespreken. In het heetst van de storm was u ook niet welkom in Bahrein.

Er zijn holebi's in de sport. Absoluut, kan niet anders. Maar high profile coming-outs zijn niet meteen te verwachten. Niet alleen de fans, de ploegmaten en de sponsors spelen een rol in die overweging. Ook de wet. En die is nogal dwingend.

Benjamin

"Los que me critican son las personas para las cuales el sexo es aquel digamos clásico, con la posición del misionero. Pero no es sólo así y las críticas a mi vida privada no tienen fundamento"

"Un tiempo se criticaba a los homosexuales, los travestidos. En Inglaterra la homosexualidad era delito. Los hubo hasta en la F-1. Pero hoy cada uno hace lo que quiere en su vida privada mientras no dañe a nadie"

Max and Oswald Mosley. 'Dad I'd like to keep my politics private but do you know someone who might beat a chap up for money?'

Alastair had posted the article (and I had posted the quiz below) because Mosley's son Max (who is something to do with motor racing......I know or care not what) had successfully sued the News of the World not for defamation but invasion of privacy. The 'newspaper' ran a story about Mosley ( 68 ) being involved in orgies with a Nazi theme.

It set me thinking on the whole totalitarian vista. I may not be the most knowledgeable student of politics but I have always maintained an interest. I long ago came to the conclusion that you couldn't really put a cigarette paper between communism and fascism. Both find breeding grounds in the same sort of economic conditions and claim an all for one one for all creed, both promise a better lot for the working man and both have a raft of populist proposals and plans which appeal to the human psyche. Easy answers for extremely complicated issues. The reality of course is somewhat different. The one thing the working man is assured of under communism or fascism is more work and often a uniform and a gun to go with it. That and the alienation/demonisation/extermination of certain groups.

Perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions about fascism is that under Mussolini 'the trains ran on time'. The excerpt below is from snopes.com

'That's the train now I think'

'The best ways to gain the support of the people you want to lead is to do something of benefit to them. Failing that, the next best thing is to convince them that you have done something of benefit to them, even though you really haven't. So it was with Benito Mussolini and the Italian railway system.

After the "march on Rome" (which was itself a myth of fascist propaganda) on 28 October 1922 that resulted in King Vittorio Emanuele's appointment of Benito Mussolini as prime minister and the accession to power of the fascists in Italy, Mussolini needed to convince the people of Italy that fascism was indeed a system that worked to their benefit. Thus was born the myth of fascist efficiency, with the train as its symbol. The word was spread that Mussolini had turned the dilapidated Italian railway system into one that was the envy of all Europe, featuring trains that were both dependable and punctual. In Mussolini's Italy, all the trains ran on
time.

Well, not quite. The Italian railway system had fallen into a rather sad state during World War I, and it did improve a good deal during the 1920s, but Mussolini was disingenuous in taking credit for the changes: much of the repair work had been performed before Mussolini and the fascists came to power in 1922. More importantly (to the claim at hand), those who actually lived in Italy during the Mussolini era have borne testimony that the Italian railway's legendary adherence to timetables was far more myth than reality.

The myth of Mussolini's punctual trains lives on, albeit with a different slant: rather than serving as a fictitious symbol of the benefits of fascism, it is now offered as a sardonic example that something good can result even from the worst of circumstances. As Montagu and Darling wrote:
Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but 'one had to admit' one thing about the Dictator: he 'made the trains run on time.'
No, thanks. I'd rather walk'

Bitch, bitch, bitch
This just in: we're a bunch of protectionist, defeatist sheep. Discuss.

Jeffrey Simpson is back in a foul temper, and The Globe and Mail is better for it, we feel. Today he decries our hypocritical stance on world trade, which involves demanding "other countries lower their subsides and protection for agricultural products that we export … while insisting that whole sections of Canada's agricultural market remain effectively closed to imports"—notably poultry, eggs and dairy, which are subject to gigantic import tariffs. Since there's no political courage to anger farmers—particularly in Quebec, which benefits most from this "across-the-board, across-the-country racket"—and no groundswell of public opposition, Simpson says the only hope is that ongoing trade talks establish a framework in which Canada will simply be forced to change.

The Halifax Chronicle-Herald's Dan Leger believes we're becoming "a society of complainers and defeatists," noting our fatalistic tendencies on Afghanistan ("we can't do anything to help … so we shouldn’t even try"), law-and-order ("let's just clean up the blood and punish the perps," and never mind root causes), the economy ("we can’t stand on our own feet economically, so let’s shut our doors to foreign trade and investment"), and culture ("let's just be tax-averse Neanderthals"). He concedes the media may have played a teensy role in creating this atmosphere, and rendering politicians fearful of espousing any big, new ideas.

North and west
The Globe's Gary Mason looks at the Yukon's surprisingly promising experiment with aboriginal self-government, arguing that while it hasn't been quick or hiccup-free, many native bands now "have the power to take over responsibility for areas such as education, health and justice—and some are doing just that." This would have been impossible without the "respectful and supportive relationship" between aboriginal leaders and the territorial government, Mason believes, which has made such concessions as banning oil and gas exploration in areas subject to unsettled land claims. "With any luck, and with further progress," Mason says this "may be a model for what native/non-native relations can be in this country."

The Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer crunches the numbers on the B.C. government's carbon emissions reduction targets, answering intriguing questions such as: if electricity production currently accounts for just two per cent of emissions, how will it account for "three times the projected savings of emissions from the carbon tax"? (Answer: project an emissions number based on massive increases in fossil fuel-burning electricity production, then decide not to do it.) A 16-member Climate Action Team is due to report this week on how to close a nine million tonne gap, which Palmer says is no small feat—and whatever they recommend, Gordon Campbell faces some "tough calls."

The way we were, and aren't anymore
In the Ottawa Citizen, Andrew Cohen laments the state of modern childhood, as exemplified by the 21st-century summer camp—with its cell phones, iPods, video games, safety obsessions and all around abandonment of the principle of kids spending a dirty, carefree summer in the woods. We completely agree, however, we're having trouble accepting Cohen's sepia-toned recollections without some kind of documentation. Was summer camp really "affordable" in his day? Did it really expose children to others "of different backgrounds, nationalities and languages," or did it just "expose" middle-to-upper-class Christian kids from Maine to middle-to-upper-class Jewish kids from Montreal (a fine goal in itself, we hasten to add)? And, uh, this: "Under the ebbing sun, oars breaking the shimmering surface, frogs croaking, we followed the shore in search of pieces of driftwood to make lamps. Seeking a kind of littoral truth, we found contentment." Bill? Bill Wordsworth, from Camp Tall Timbers—is that you? Why, we haven't seen you in years!

In the National Post, Robert Fulford reviews Alex Gibney's Gonzo, a new film about Hunter S. Thompson, calling it "undeniably evocative" of his glory years—"a time of infinite silliness wrapped in blankets of self-righteousness, but also a now-mythical era that the present often can't keep itself from envying." But in glossing over the less romantic aspects of Thompson's life—his passion for Jimmy Carter, for example, which ended not in "tragedy" or "failure" but simply in "a dreary presidency"—Fulford thinks Gibney has also evoked "the old-fashioned journalism that aroused the contempt of Thompson and others in his generation."

Duly noted
The Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington muses over Barbara Amiel's "cri de coeur" in the current issue of Maclean's, suggesting it makes an interesting contrast with Conrad Black himself. "To Conrad, ever optimistic, life is a glass half-full—even now as he endures prison where both staff and inmates are said to compete for seats to hear his lectures on history," he argues. "Barbara is intrinsically pessimistic, perhaps subscribing to the concept that a pessimist is rarely disappointed."

The Toronto Star's David Olive describes the new Cuil search engine as "the latest in a long list of also-ran or failed challenges to Google"—on its first day of operation! Ouch! Or… maybe not so ouch. Olive says the sheer breadth of Cuil's day-one ineptitude "got me wondering if, once the algorithms are tweaked, [it] is destined to become mere takeover bait for the likes of Microsoft." Under such circumstances, we'd be proud to be associated with a useless search engine. (Based purely on Cuil's inability to find the Megapundit homepage, however, we are forced to deem it a wretched failure. It also ranks the search term "Selley" in a completely inappropriate and insulting manner.)

The Globe's Margaret Wente examines the tricky art of political cartooning in the age of Islamic extremism and (in Canada) human rights commissions.

The Post's Jonathan Kay declares his sympathies for Max Mosley in the matter of the "Teutonic orgy," noting that that "perfectly 'normal' people often have fantasies that are violent and even ghoulish." We can repress those urges, like Catholic priests try to do—"with, shall we say, mixed results." Or, if we are spectacularly wealthy and uninhibited, we can indulge them. "Perhaps he began associating Fascism with his father's affection," Kay suggests, "or perhaps he hated his parents, and aimed every S&M baton blow at their departed souls. Who knows? And who—except for Mosley's own family—should really care?"

Having tried to shake off the stigma of his parentage, only to acquire a second and debatably even worse stigma, must seem to him very unfair indeed. As much as I dislike the man, I have to agree.

During the 60s there was another high-profile sex scandal, when the then Secretary of State for War was involved with call girl Christine Keeler, who also had links to a Russian spy. John Profumo, after initially lying to the House of Commons and denying his involvement in the affair, subsequently resigned.

His wife stood by him, and he redeemed himself by spending the next forty years of his life working for a relatively low-profile charity in the East End of London.

Mr Profumo died at 91, just over two years ago, and although his name will always be synonymous with a sex scandal, he will also be remembered as a man who restored his dignity by accepting his culpability and his genuine remorse at the damage he caused.

The FIA has a global membership of almost 125 million. It encompasses all creeds, religions and cultures, and the members have a right to expect their elected leader and most senior representatives to maintain standards in both his professional and private life so as to maintain the dignity and respect for his office and the organisation, the richest sport in the world.

How does any electorate gain the right to determine an elected representative's private life? I don't get that you see. On the surface it's the same as the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair - sure the guy's a sleazebag (in that case you knew before he was even elected), but did that private, consensual sex affect his ability to do his job? No. Sure he was cheating on Hillary but that's their problem surely? Is that not the same with the Max Mosley affair, or was there something deeper going on? Former Archbishop Lord Carey said:

"If a politician, a judge, a bishop or any public figure cannot keep their promises to a wife, husband, etc, how can they be trusted to honour pledges to their constituencies and people they serve?”

“This is a bleak, deeply-flawed ’anything goes’ philosophy. It is also dangerous and socially undermining - devoid of the basic, decent moral standards that form the very fabric of our society.”

I fail to see how Max Mosley's private behaviour affects the fabric of society, unless of course Carey's attacking the sex itself. What a surprise it would be for the former Archbishop of Canterbury to be campaigning against sexual practice he's simply prejudiced against. From the government's first attempt to equalise the gay and straight ages of consent, instead of siding with equality, he chose instead make a moral judgment on sex which was already consensual for heterosexual partners and sided with his bishops who:

stress(ed) that sexual relationships legislation should "set an example of what is good and be rooted in sound moral values".

"Pressures are at work to legitimise any and every lifestyle irrespective of any difference of value and quality between them," said the statement.

"These pressures should be resisted."

Except he and they were wrong, and gay sex at 16 and 17 hasn't turned out to be any more dangerous for society since 2000, than equally consensual S&M sex is now. NOTW continued however in the same vein as Carey:

His activities were not "Carry On" style hanky-spanky parties, as his legal team argued.

They were brutal, repulsive and depraved, as the evidence in the case revealed.

The beatings were violent and blood was drawn after Mosley was relentlessly whipped with a birch. Prostitutes were subjected to simulated rape.

He beat girls' bare bottoms with a leather strap and barked "I zink zey need more of ze punishment." He counted out the blows and then a prostitute performed a sex act on him. He also had full sex with one of the women.

Before that, he played out a bizarre scene where he had his genitals inspected and measured, his bottom shaved and had his hair searched for lice.

This was all consensual. That our 'moral guardian' George Carey and champion of 'family values' News International (seen page 3 of The Sun recently?) don't like it really is tough. If he'd raped any of the prostitutes then he should be in jail, if he'd done this in the workplace he should be (maybe) fired, but neither was the case. Maybe the point wasn't even the sex. Maybe it's his name:

Mosley won his high court action against the News of the World on Thursday after Mr Justice Eady ruled there was no public interest in the story, and that there were no Nazi connotations in what Mosley was doing.

Cute. Their 'public morality' argument was really just a smokescreen to try to link Max with his father, to suggest that fascist Oswald bred a Nazi son. And now they've failed, they're now making straw man arguments which don't stand up to the most basic tests of logic:

What, for instance, would your response be if your child's teacher enjoyed inflicting pain on others and took part in S&M orgies with prostitutes ?

Wouldn't you want to know?

Don't you have a RIGHT to know?

Or the Cabinet Minister and the Archbishop caught indulging in their dark, secret sexual fantasies?

I don't care about teachers' sex lives if they're private and consensual. I don't care about Cabinet Ministers' sex lives, unless they use them as weapons. Michael Portillo jumped on John Major's 'family values' bandwagon in the 90s for cheap electoral gain, even though he was a closet bisexual. Sure that was in the public interest, because he was pretending he was something other than what he was to the detriment of others - not the case with Max Mosley. I'm pleased with his huge damages victory and that he's going to sue them and others for libel. This unfettered presumption that the media can intrude without consideration into people's lives has got to stop - surely each individual case has to be weighed up on its own merits rather than saying there's either an unrestricted or no right to privacy?

The News of the World is proud of its tradition for investigative and campaigning journalism

Our Sarah's Law campaign has pioneered 14 new pieces of legislation to give the public more protection and information of convicted paedophiles in the community.

There is no newspaper in this country more repellent than the News of the World. Proud of its tradition of ruining people's lives, intruding into private matters which aren't anyone's business, and starting moral panics for the sake of profit more like. Papers like the NOTW are, more than any other non-governmental organisation, responsible for the culture of 'protection' which I've blogged about a bit recently. And their 'Sarah's Law' campaign did this:

Vigilante groups, mainly composed of parents incensed at the idea of having convicted paedophiles living in their area, mounted angry protests outside the suspected sex offenders' houses. Two men accused of child sex offences committed suicide and four innocent families fled their homes in Portsmouth after gossip and rumour wrongly identified them as harbouring paedophiles. Violence flared in Plymouth and Whitely, Berkshire. Innocent men mistaken for paedophiles were targeted in London and Manchester.

Max Mosley's own final word:

"The News of the World stole my image and my dignity. I feel very strongly that some newspapers literally ruin people's lives and more has to be done to stop this."

Couldn't agree more.

I've been following it partly because I have a passing interest in privacy law in all its forms. The UK doesn't have a privacy law, as you may well know. UK citizens rely on a European law passed in 2000 if we want recourse because our privacy has been done injury.

The NoTW claims that the Mosley story could be printed because it was 'in the public interest'. Of course, that was hokum. It couldn't be further from the public interest if it moved to Greenland and lived in an igloo. That's not to say that the public aren't interested in salacious scandal like this; of course they are. We're raised on a diet of sex scandals and affairs, live sex on Big Brother and pretty young things of both sexes falling out of China White's at 3am. Somehow this trash is served up as "celebrity news" and we lap it up like feral dogs.

In the past we've had David 'Splitter' Beckham's alleged affair with googly-eyed pig wanker Rebecca Loos; Kieron Dyer et al spit-roasting natives in Aya Napa; Ashley Young's touching YouTube declaration of self-love; a bunch of nobodies at Sunderland filming each other on their phones; Man Utd's Christmas orgies and Jonny Evans' arrest for alleged rape (and don't even get me started on why a suspect can be named but the victim isn't). 'News', according to The News of The World, The Sun, The Star et al.

I for one am sick of these stories. As a Spectator magazine article stated around the time of the Cynthia Payne trial, “… what passes privately between consenting adults, corrupts no minors, creates no public nuisance, disturbs no neighbours and frightens no horses is no longer a concern of the law, is no longer a matter of curiosity of the police and the prurience of the police”. It isn't anyone's business what these people do whilst they're amongst consenting adults, and by no stretch of even the most stagnant imagination is it 'in the public interest'.

Illegal wars on another country are in the public interest. The Police shooting innocent people is in the public interest. So is spending £3bn on nuclear warheads when one in three children in this country live below the poverty line, when most people in the country can't go to the dentist because there are no NHS dentists accepting new patients and private dentists are far too expensive, when school leavers can't make a decision on their future because the government insisted that SAT marking went out to tender and the lowest bidder monumentally screwed up. Does Ashley Cole's fling with a hairdresser who looked like the Rock of Gibraltar (rock formation or race horse, you decide) merit front page news compared against 3bn quid on nuclear warheads? When Danielle Lloyd goes out with everyone who's ever played in the premier league, does that compare to allowing the US to use our country as a comfort break stop on extraordinary rendition flights? Does Max Mosley's German-themed orgy (Nazi is a political affiliation, not a nationality) compare to the brutal levels of oppression and censorship in China, Tibet, Myanmar, East Timor, Diego Garcia ... The list goes on.

The answer, of course, is no. Mosley's tastes might seem unconventional to some, but they remain private business carried out amongst consenting adults and that's the way they should stay. Frankly, it's Mosley's other aberrant behaviour that should worry people more. Dedicating his life to cars driving round in a circle? Now that's sick.

I want humans to become better people, and I want them to want to be that thing. I want them to not have to want to read scurrilous crap, about the sexual leanings of other people, printed by "news papers". That they want this stuff merely opens doors for supposed "moralists", which is to say:- stalinists in disguise, to operate controls. My objective is best served by freeing education from the State's control. Search many earlier posts about education here.

Now, I wouldn't so sado-masochism if you paid me. (Nor "oral" sex for that matter, whatever that strange and tautologous concept might be.) Or to be spanked, like poor old Sir Max Mosley, in a sexual context? Nah. The "News of the World" , described as a "news paper", thinks that one person's private delights ought to be displayed "in the public interest". Yet, a person described as a "retired archbishop" (does he stop believing in God then, when he "retires" - a strange this for a "man of God" to do, I would have thought...retire?) thinks that such "news papers" ought to be allowed to go on supplying suppurating pus for people, robbed by the State of the ability to make informed judgements, to drink.

I'm not so sure as "Lord" Carey is.

People's sexual and fetish habits become the property of others in a society where other people have nothing better to do than to want to know about them, for (what is called in Liverpool) "a laff". This comes about because all other ways to stimulate the brain and mind, such as reading 1950s engineering textbooks on lathe operation, or practising with a reproduction Long-Bow, or learning how to build and drive a computer-aided 5-axis-milling-machine, have been taped off.

It is also reasonable to suppose that what someone wants to get up to in his (or her) bedroom, with or without one - or many - girls (or men) to help, and whether these are paid to help or not, is his (or her) private business. It was obvious to a child of six that a "public interest" defence by the NoW would fail.

Even in a free market, I for one would prefer that "there is no market in the gap" for stories like this, notwitstanding that I would make _no law_ to make publishing them an offence. I would, as I said, prefer that _people_ should find them both uninteresting and intrusional, such that there would be no reason for a "news paper" to publish such a thing.

The solution of course is better people. Perhaps we  libertarians will also have to dissolve them and elect another? Perhaps revolution is harder than it looks?

Dass Mosley 1.500.000 Millionen vom Verlag bekommt, ist unwahrscheinlich laut bildblog.de jedoch wird das Urteil aus England durchaus eine Rolle spielen. Es handelt sich auch nicht nur um eine Klage sondern gleich um mehrere: Beleidigung, übler Nachrede, Verleumdung und Verletzung des höchstpersönlichen Lebensbereichs durch Bildaufnahmen. Und gegen den Vorstand der Axel Springer AG wegen Untreue.

Warum Untreue? Hier das Zitat von bildblog.de! Ich wünsche Max Mosley viel Glück!

Die Untreue:

Wie uns Mosleys Anwältin sagt, gehe sie davon aus, dass die von "Bild" veröffentlichten Aufnahmen aus dem Orgien-Video die "Bild"-Zeitung "über 65.000 Euro" gekostet haben dürften. Ausgaben in dieser Größenordnung müsse der Springer-Vorstand absegnen. Da die Veröffentlichung der Bilder rechtswidrig gewesen sei, hätte der Vorstand damit Firmengelder rechtswidrig verwendet. Insofern sehe sie hier den Tatbestand der Untreue zum Nachteil der Axel Springer AG als gegeben an.

mehr dazu auf bildBLOG.de

]]> http://boatangdemetriou.wordpress.com/?p=322 Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:20:16 +0000 kevinboatang http://boatangdemetriou.wordpress.com/?p=322 I've just been reading about how Max Mosley will now sue everyone in sight for deciding to publish his private life. Good. In turn, Lord Carey, the former Archbish of Canterbury has waded in to the row, saying that it is a harmful ruling (against the News of the World) that will harm free speech and morality.

Lord Carey writes for the News of the World.

So basically, a former leader of the Anglican church has decided to take the shilling of Murdoch and launch into an attack on the courts of this land.

Surely using his position in the Lord's would be better for all involved?

He is entitled to his views of course, but by announcing them in the rag in question he has utterly undermined his argument. You have to ask yourself: has he taken the bag of money from the NOTW to fight their corner and abuse his position, or is he so naive as to think that writing this article in this paper has no impact or consequence?

Either way, to my mind, he has reveled himself as having poor judgement.

One of his main points is that if a man cannot stay faithful to his wife and the vows he made, how can he stay faithful to his duty of office. What complete rubbish. Every monarch for centuries has had strings of lovers, countless MP's have had affairs and been pefectly able to do their jobs.

And Max Mosley is the head of the FIA, not exactly leader of the free world is it?

What the man did was not illegal, it is a matter purely for his conscience and it is for him to answer the judgement his wife, children, family and friends will lay at his door. It is not up to the tabloids to do it for him.

And it is certainly not the job of an old bastard like Carey, useless at Canterbury, has now apparently sold his soul to the media and is a puppet for their vested interests.

Now the Executive Coaching Guru doesn't feel it is his right to judge others, in regards to their personal appetites, whatever you get up to in the privy of your own dungeon is your business! But there are a few things that don't sit comfortably.

As long as no one is getting harmed, then basically do what you want, but at the same time you are the leader of an organisation that operates at a global level and has incredible power in terms of its influence, not only within a global market but to all those that look up to their sporting heroes. So you see, it's not just as simple a thing as saying "it's a private matter", because once you take on the mantel of leadership, especially within a marketing led business, then this comes with it's own level of responsibilities.

Let's use the example of parent hood, Max has sons, who I can only believe are embarrassed by the exploits of their father. But doesn't Max have a responsibility to those boys that goes beyond the 'not getting caught' to the 'not blinking well doing it in the first place'. Why? Simply because he had no right to place his family into a 'potential' situation where this might occur, which it did. Because these things always come out.

In the same way the Guru believes that Mr Max Mosely had a responsibility to not place the sport he represents into a place where if something goes wrong, may create a situation that adversely affects it. But Mr Ecclestone (President and CEO of Formula One Management and Formula One Administration) denied that the claims threatened Mr Mosley's position as president of the motor sport's governing body, saying, "Has he in anyway damaged F1? No!"; he told the Daily Mail.

Really Mr Ecclestone, you can see nothing that connects the behaviour of this individual to the sport, I bet you'd be singing a different tune if you didn't like the guy. If you don't already know Mr Mosley is the fourth son of British World War II fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, a friend of Adolf Hitler, now if ever there was a warning sign that you might not want to get caught up in anything that even has the word German in it as a descriptor, I reckon that's it.

So what is the message here, well it's a simple one. The moment you step into a leadership role, you are bestowed with a weight of office that goes beyond the mere operational tasks that come with the role, I can't believe for one moment that if asked if he believes leadership entails 'only making the numbers', that Mr Mosley would agree. No, he'd say, 'there is more than just output generation to being a leader, one must live by a code that others can aspire to, you have to stand for something bigger than the job itself". And if he is ever asked this, and replies with that line, I'd agree.

But somehow I don't think that's going to happen in the immediate future.

By paper, I of course mean rag that is used to clean toilets.

Their claim was that it was an attack upon freedom. Utter rubbish. A prostitute secretly films a grown man taking part in sexual activity that is completely consensual, in private, and then publishes the story, stills and film of the incident.

That is an attack upon freedom. Their week defence that it was somehow in the public interest fell on deaf ears. They even tried to claim that a man such as max Mosley who partakes on a regular basis in such activities should expect to be outed at some point.

I do not agree with the silencing of the media, but it is stories like this that damage the British media beyond repair. There is simply no justification to intrude upon a person's privacy in this way.

It is of no interest, other than cheap titilation of the cornflakes, what a rich, powerful or famous person does in their bedroom. If he was raping children in Borneo then fine, but he wasn't.

Hopefully this case will make the gutter press in this country think before they ruin someones life, but I doubt it.

Well, clearly, the world had no right to know that the son of Britain's biggest fascist, who's wedding was attended by Adolph Hitler (the father's..), clearly hasn't outgrown the whole "give-us-back-the-Rhineland" thing.

And for my money, there are way better things 5 prostitutes could wear..... like... I don't know....nothing?

Aah, yes, this is how adults have fun.

-*confused* AA

LONDON, BERLIN, PATAGONIA & DACHAU - 24 July 2008 - Neo-Nazis throughout Europe, Asia, The Middle East and North, Central and South America, including Patagonia - expressed shock, regret and not a little sadness today at the news that Formula One boss “Mad” Max Mosley was awarded a record £60,000 in damages after winning his privacy case over claims he took part in a “sick Nazi orgy”.

High Court judge Mr Justice Headly Lamarr (and you may ask yourself why) sided with Mr Mostly in his action against the News of the World, which published pictures of him indulging in a sado-masochistic sex session with five hookers, four birches, three blunt razors, two cans of quick-acting, stain-free Zyklon B automatic dishwasher pellets (”Insert ONLY from above and step back”) and a plastic partridge in a pear tree shaped dildo.

In the sleepy Bavarian village of Dachau, 83-year-old horse butcher, Adolf Hatler (Ed. Names changed to prevent being sued) said it was another sad day for Nazism in general. “You’d think after 63 years we could go back to living a normal life without shame and not fear the justice system ignoring our God-given Human Right to hobbies and games that have been handed down to generations of Bavarian Catholics.”

Eva Brown (Ed. Names changed…etc.) now 87 and a mornings-only Berlin library-cleaning lady, waxed nostalgic and a football-pitch-sized wooden floor. “I’m too old now to participate but I fondly recall in 1945 as the Russians entered Potsdam spraying sweet-smelling lavender-scented Zyklon B insect repellant on Dr. Joseph Googles and his wife who were already in a state of heightened excitement at the thought of being captured copulating in full military regalia.”

One-time Bayern Munich “Mittelstuermer” Franz-Josef Hitler (Ed. Names changed…etc.) reached on his iPhone 3GB in remote Patagonia was less sanguine. “Thank the Lord we out here are safe from prying journalists, after-all they only got Eichmann when the blithering idiot went to see The Godfather because he’d heard Robert Duvall was his spitting image. But I would appreciate an email with the online address for the bird-shaped dildo. That sounds like fun.”

Formula One “Obersturmbahnfuerer” Mosley (Ed. Only some names changed…etc.) himself seemed torn between two birchings about the record sum awarded him. “Just because I’m the son of Britain’s last Fascist Leader willing to announce his allegiance to Nazism in public doesn’t mean to say I actually enjoy wearing concentration camp kit, having my pubes shaved with a blunt razor, being screamed at by hookers pretending to be prison guards, and Jews at that, inserting Zyklon-B capsules from below without rubber gloves and not stepping away and anticipating somewhat fearsomely four agonising hours of “The Partridge” In fact I don’t enjoy it at all. That’s the whole point. It’s the humiliation that’s the most fun. Like I’m getting standing here outside the court talking to you “Arschlochers!”

Yep . . . again with the blurries.

File under “the National Evil, keeping you updated on the goings-on in the seamy underworld of hardcore S&M sex orgy-related lawsuits” . . .

Remember this post from last week? Well, Mr. Mosley has won his privacy case against the nefarious News of the World (of Red-Hot Depravity) to the tune of $120,000 in damages—which, sadly, is only half as many pounds. Ye Gods!—Evil remembers people joking that “If you take a thousand bucks to Mexico, you can live like a king!” Soon that’ll be the case with our former British overlords. For shame.

Back to orgy news. From CNN:

[T]he main point out of the decision was that public figures' sex lives were out of bounds unless a hypocritical element could be proved. For example, a politician who was campaigning on a moral platform while violating those morals in his private life.

The Evil, plotting his own meteoric rise to worldwide fame, wholeheartedly endorses this interpretation. Especially since his own tastes run toward the most diabolical, twisted acts imaginable; the only he could introduce a “hypocritical element” would be to cuddle a kitten. Not a sex kitten. A real kitten. A cute one. In a nurturing, non-sexual way. So that works out pretty well for the Evil, opening heretofore forbidden avenues of depravity to his always-smoldering imagination. (Those kittens are doomed! Dooooomed!)

Hmm. Scratch that last paragraph.

At the heart of the matter is this:

News of the World editor Colin Myler said he believed the story was one of "legitimate public interest and one that I believe was legitimately published," PA reported.

There is an insidious logic that has taken hold of our media, and it revolves around that oh-so-slippery term, “public interest.” The interpretation that seems to have taken root in Western society is quite literal: whatever the public finds interesting. Again and again you’ll hear media types and their paparazzi dogs defending their invasive practices by this logic. Perhaps we should ban the term “public interest” entirely, replacing it with . . . jeez . . . the “public good”?

As in: this information must be imparted for the good of the public. For example, the hypothetical (cough, cough) politician described above. You need to know about these things in order to make an informed voting decision; you do not, however, need to know what Brangelina’s babies look like. (Unless of course they say screw it and sell off the pictures.)

Please note that this is the first, and possibly only, time the Evil will endorse anything “good”.

Enjoy the weekend. If possible, defend your privacy like a mother bear protecting her cubs.