Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
I only caught bits of this in the car as I was dropping the kids off at school, but seeing as he's so popular around here I thought I'd pass it on . Most of it is about him being outed as a sexual deviant, which plants a lot of images in my head that I really don't need, but there is also some stuff about his early days as a driver and how he came to be FIA president.
[I think that much of the BBC's radio stuff is available worldwide. I work for a German company and our internet servers are in Munich. I can't watch videos on the BBC F1 site, for example, at work but I can listen to BBC radio programmes, so it's worth a try even if you're outside the UK.]
Pretty good program and it was easy to understand a complex issue such as the British privacy law. I have even learned a new thing, and that was the figure of 99% of cases of investigative journalism involved asking the subject of your research to comment. I'm even more convinced than before that Mosley is absolutely right with his campaign.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Interseting point WB, however, wouldn't you agree with me that it would be even more useful if a law was passed, where the different candidates for various positions representing society were all obliged to submit some sort of declaration on their personal status beforehand?
I willingful admit that I belong to the crowd that believes that an individual's private life is more often than not a reflection of their professional such.
Various "scandals" over the past decade suggests that it would again be useful for the public, where the late Jörg Haider and different UK ministers comes to mind, as well as Swedish candidates for government positions are being disclosed as tax-evaders just in time before their installation.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Expensive, that's not the point in my view. Mosley gets his kicks in the bed room from different things than other people and I respect his right to do so.
I make no difference if people I work with are homosexuals, men who crossdress as women, are into group sex, visit swinger clubs or pay sex workers for their pecadillos as long as it is done with the consent of all concerned and with adult people in the privacy of an appropriate location. In my view people have the right to do all these things equallly and with the same right as people who restrict their sexuality to procreation with a legaly married partner of the opposite sex.
I don't mind things like the US senate hearings on politicians for important goverment posts. That's fine in principle with me. I don't find it acceptable when the questions stray into what I regard as the personal freedom to live out your own version of sexuality in privacy. Such questions must be off limit. The questions should be restricted to political questions and to any conflicts with the law in their earlier life.
I have no understanding for people who do whitch hunts of any kind on minorities due to gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. I hate such people and they will always be robustly rejected by me. If someone tries to use items and issue that I consider private to influence the public and professional career of people they will quickly find me as an enemy.
Germany's federal government just got it's defence minister shitcanned. He cheated on his doctoral thesis by plagiarism. The gov tried to keep him in office. It did not work. Too many honest students and PHDs threw up a shitstorm of protest and rightly so. Such conflicts with the the law are the tests for suitability and not whether you get your rocks off by beeing beaten or screwing someone adult whichever way you see fit.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Unless the activities of said candidates are illegal of course, but hold on, prostitution is legal in Germany, it even seems to be helped and encouraged by the government at times, isn't it? Imagine Hamburg without the young girls of Reeperbahn?
Not sure if the same goes for the rest of Europe or the world for that matter, why I'm rather certain that MrM broke a law or two when entertaining his five whipping-whores wearing concentration-camp outfits.
Not to mention his complete lack of judgement and respect for his office, with the utterly tasteless nature of the entire spectacle. Thanks News of the world for outing this dispicable character once and for all, not one day too soon.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
WhiteBlue wrote:If someone tries to use items and issue that I consider private to influence the public and professional career of people they will quickly find me as an enemy
I agree with you on protecting personal matters from the general public, but there's an inseparable connection between personal life and professional life. That includes sex, religion and anything you name. Not one specific religion or sexual behaviour of course, but all of them. Trying to separate personal from professional life seems more like politically correct modern babble hypocrisy.
So yes, Max private sexual life shouldn't be published to the general public like this. But having been know, it does reveal a thing or two about him that are not very good and this is undeniable. And guess what, he's not minority, he's heterosexual. Wouldn't change a thing if he was not though, except that maybe he could use some politically correct speech to try to get away with it by pretending to be excursively a victim of prejudice.
I've been censored by a moderation team that rather see people dying and being shot at terrorist attacks than allowing people to speak the truth. That's racist apparently.
xpensive wrote:Interseting point WB, however, wouldn't you agree with me that it would be even more useful if a law was passed, where the different candidates for various positions representing society were all obliged to submit some sort of declaration on their personal status beforehand?
I willingful admit that I belong to the crowd that believes that an individual's private life is more often than not a reflection of their professional such.
Various "scandals" over the past decade suggests that it would again be useful for the public, where the late Jörg Haider and different UK ministers comes to mind, as well as Swedish candidates for government positions are being disclosed as tax-evaders just in time before their installation.
How many people would admit to tax evasion under your idea of declaring one's "personal status," whatever that means?
That idea sounds like a way to sanction prejudice.
WB you seem to be making a lot of sense here. Let me help you out with your argument. MrM's sexual obsession is just a take on how he finds pleasure. It's the same as our choosing to listen to Mozart or Eminem. These choices are personal and do not affect one's professional judgement, and we should not use the news to question MrM's ability to hold office.
Actually your principle is that of unity in diversity, which says that people of different takes and beliefs should be able to come together in harmony. Very well, only that life is generally a little more complex than a one-line description of an ideal, unfortunately.
In reality it is not very easy to tell whether a "personal choice" is harmless or not. For example, MrM's actions actually involves many things, deception and prostitution being two of them. In carrying out his desires he is deliberately hiding the truth from his family, which he must have sworn to love and protect. Instead he had let his desires get the better of him. He is also OK with the fact that the girls who play with him can continue in prostitution when he knows it is also their right to live an alternative, less distasteful life. That right, I'd like to add, is as big, if not bigger, than his so-called right to privacy, but sadly it is much less talked-about.
We have been conditioned to simply draw a line between what is a "choice" that does not affect other people, and what is a "crime" that the public should be interested in. This is very sad given we live in an age where we consider ourselves to be "liberated".
I'd like to add that the law is flawed which is most evident in the fact that different countries have different versions of it. Use the law as your moral yardstick and you run into serious trouble.
Last but not least I'd like to go back to the original point - whether private behavior should never be connected with one's professional career. Assuming you are open-minded enough I'd like to bring you to a famous Chinese quote: "If you cannot manage your household (i.e. family), how can you rule the country?" It's not the type of conventional "reason" that we are conditioned to accept, but if you calm down, sit a while and think about it, it's got a lot of wisdom there beyond the superficial meaning of the sentence.
None of the above points are convincing to me. I support the right of privacy exactly as Max Mosley proposes it. He has done nothing illegal but had his private sex life exposed by irresponsible and criminal acts of people who did not serve a public interest but their own greedy objectives. That much was established by the high court ruling.
Mosley is now doing the british public a favor by going after the dirt throwers and denying them the tricks they use to break the law. Compulsory prior contact to the subject of a news story is not going to hurt legitimate investigative reporters who's work is uncovering illegal practises in public life. Those people will allways have the subject comment in order to improve the story and the legal position of their publication.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
You get the necessary views on this question quite nice, nipo. Though I would add that not everything that's seemingly a speech of diversity or unity is actually truth or good. Nor would be desirable in an extreme fashion so hypocritically defended by some, people like being different from each other, not just having complete "unity".
Also, different laws are not a problem. They are just a reflection of those differences and each culture personal choices up to a certain point. And the lines drawn by it are mostly good, with flaws coming for different reasons most of the times.
BTW, listening to Mozart or Eminem is noting more than a personal choice as you said. And the person is the professional. When the professional is completely different from the person, that's were you run into another problem: a farce which eventually will fall and trouble the professional.
The problem here is that in this subject you have people generally divided in two opposite sides when in reality they should converge a lot more. Those two sides will generally carry different but similar kinds of prejudice, and that includes "peace and full unit" supporters and people that are so "good and humanistic" that can't see differences in people and pretend to be part of a non existent "I don't have any race or sexual preference group". The opposite side to this will tell you someone who listens to Eminem is necessarily bad and those who listen to Mozart are necessarily good. The "I don't care about your differences, but somehow I know you are different" group will say that questioning the relation between the music taste and the person is prejudice, especially if the one being questioned listens to Eminem or is part of any kind of minority.
Both end up with very bad results. And there's nothing superficial about the proverb you posted, which does go along the lines you described about Max's interference in his professional life caused by his personal life. I must say that in those cases of family betray, I wouldn't trust the person for anything. Be the person of whatever sexuality, race or religion she or he is. If the guy is able to cheat his wife, he is able and wiling to do much worse to me.
WhiteBlue, I would like to see you supporting this when the privacy law gets in the way of investigating something were a minority was the harmed one. Even though I pretty much support as well a nice privacy law, I guess your agenda here is to show you are against homophobia and such. We get you, I believe most agree with you, but there's no need in having a unnecessarily polarised opinion just to show how good you are as a citizen. First, that proves nothing, second, given Max's particular case it's pretty obvious he has a certain bad behaviour pattern that is reflected in his personal life and is also repeated in his sexual life.
I mean, it's not very nice to be excited by being dominated by someone dressed as a Nazi, especially considering by his comments on this, which seems to support that this is not purely a kinky something he does but a representation of something he likes and that he shouldn't. There are several psychology theories who say clear things about sex and personal behaviour relations, though we must deny the obvious these days to say we are "progressive and correct citizens". There is just where saying and being makes its difference.
I've been censored by a moderation team that rather see people dying and being shot at terrorist attacks than allowing people to speak the truth. That's racist apparently.
WhiteBlue wrote:Compulsory prior contact to the subject of a news story is not going to hurt legitimate investigative reporters who's work is uncovering illegal practises in public life. Those people will allways have the subject comment in order to improve the story and the legal position of their publication.
Actually it can hurt legitimate investigation. In the UK we have something called a super injunction where it is possible for someone like Mosley to seek not only an injunction against a paper about to publish something but also on everyone else's ability to report that the injunction was granted. This has been used in several instances including by a politician during an election campaign who was elected with no mention of an on going criminal investigation into him, where he was subsequently convicted of that crime (for defrauding the tax payer).
The proposed legislation in the UK, as it stands and as I understand it, would actually make it near impossible to investigate anybody's private life and then publish about it in the papers, even if their activity was illegal and even if they were a public figure like an MP.
People do have a right to a private life, and as much as the man disgusts me I don't think it was right to expose Mosley in the way it was done. However I believe that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are more important than further restrictions and laws, where there is the possibility that more harm than good will come from them.
Let us also not forget that Mosley was a master of character assassination and leaking stories to the press, often guilty of shooting the messenger rather than defending against the message. I do not feel any pity for the man who died by the sword he so often wielded himself.
WhiteBlue wrote: He has done nothing illegal but had his private sex life exposed
Well, he is married so his actions were immoral for a start. As part of his marriage vows he will have promised to be faithful which means he is also a liar.
And he used prostitutes to aid his sexual gratification and while prostitution is not illegal in the UK, causing or inciting prostitution is. So he may have acted illegally there.
The key point is that, as the head of an international organisation of high standing he is expected not to be immoral or a liar. Nor is he expected to instigate potentially illegal activity. When he was pontifiacating about the immorality of McLaren he was being hypocritical in the very least.
Having said all of that, I'm not a great fan of the "sting" methods used by some journos (and we have had a few of them in the last few years in the UK). But if someone puts themselves in a position of moral superiority and then gets exposed as a hypocrit then they have only themselves to blame.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
WhiteBlue wrote: He has done nothing illegal but had his private sex life exposed
Find me a single scientific document about human sexuality or a statement from a psychiatrist, which will say that person sexually aroused by holocaust-time concentration camp atmosphere (humiliation/whipping/torture) is considered as mentally healthy, and that he should be allowed to make public statements of any kind with such huge pathological problem as part of his personality.
WhiteBlue wrote: He has done nothing illegal but had his private sex life exposed
Prostitution, both using of and working in is illegal in the UK. There's a broken law right there.
I believe that each and every person should be allowed to a private life that is not in the public eye. However, MrM has broken the law and then somehow sued a newspaper (if you can call the NOTW that) who exposed him in I guess what is classed as a criminal activity. i.e. paying for the services of a couple ladies of the night. What he was doing with them is irrelevant, no matter how distrbing I find it. Certain careers call for a certain image to be portrayed, not only professionally, but personally. MrM failed on both counts in my humble view.
It's a strange coincidence that F1 has improved since MrM departed and quit his meddling ways.
Last edited by andrew on 03 Mar 2011, 20:03, edited 1 time in total.
. Most of it is about him being outed as a sexual deviant, which plants a lot of images in my head that I really don't need, but there is also some stuff about his early days as a driver and how he came to be FIA president.
