F1technical.net

But lying to his family is justification. Mosley deserved to be exposed no matter what he was into.

andrew wrote:But lying to his family is justification. Mosley deserved to be exposed no matter what he was into.

I find this post very sad.

It shows exactly what the big problem is in our modern societies and why the gutter press now controls all our lives. They now even dictate our politics.
I suppose we get no more than we deserve.
Complacency and uncontrolled bigotry has its down side.

Perhaps Andrew you would be kind enough to explain to us why Mosley deserved to have his private activities exposed.

Read my post above. He kept his antics secret from his wife. In my book once the wedding ring goes on it stays on. Mosleys so called secret life shows him to be incredibly dishonset and untrustworthy.

His love of BDSM is irrelevant but keeping things like this secret from someone like your wife or partner is not on.

andrew wrote:Read my post above. He kept his antics secret from his wife. In my book once the wedding ring goes on it stays on. Mosleys so called secret life shows him to be incredibly dishonset and untrustworthy.

His love of BDSM is irrelevant but keeping things like this secret from someone like your wife or partner is not on.

You are not answering the question Andrew.
Your opinion as to marital morals is not the issue here.

By exposing parts of Max's private life, the criminal journalists responsible did far more damage to Max's wife and family than they did to Max himself.
The people hurt most by these criminals gutter journalists, were of course totaly innocent.
The eldest son actualy died of a drug overdose shortly afterwards.
Max does not even blame the journalists for his death.
If it had happened to me I would have dealt out a different response.

Your question was answered by the preceding post.

WhiteBlue wrote:

mx_tifosi wrote:Forget all of the Mosely and BBC stuff, what I find strange is that someone in here is willing to defend and justify BDSM with such fervor.

What I find strange is that a moderator is willing to discriminate against me over an issue of opinion.

I havn't defended or justified BDSM. I have pointed out that it is a wide spread practise which can be legally done in privacy. And the main point is that practising BDSM is no justification to break someone's privacy. It is my considered opinion that the protection of privacy is more important than the right of the gutter press to make money from bigotry.

You're certainly not being discriminated, but I was merely pointing something out. And my comments have nothing to do with my moderator status, but merely as another forum member that also has the right to voice his opinions.

But once again you've felt the need to defend it...

andrew wrote:Your question was answered by the preceding post.

No it was not.

You simply defined one of your moral beliefs on marriage.
That is fair enough and if the question was about that (which it was not), it could be argued that his wife should have been told.
(it would help then if you were a practising Christian qualified and responsible enough to take this forward and make such a decision)

However, this is completely different from saying that criminal journalists are therefore justified in using such private information to sell gutter newspapers by telling the world.
How the hell do you know how qualified or responsible such people are in such matters anyway?
Ah, I think I see, you are led by the nose by such people, of course.
It slowly becomes obvious, why the media have such power over us, they justify our bigotry through illusion. How long before the Murdochs run the governments of the world? Marriage vows Andrew? You would be better served worshipping Murdoch not any Christian God.

The issue is of nobodys business other than Max and his wife, not even his wider family.

autogyro wrote: You would be better served worshipping Murdoch not any Christian God.

Hate to burst your bubble but I am an atheist and no fan of big business.

Mr M was a naughty boy and got caught. The end.

andrew wrote:

autogyro wrote: You would be better served worshipping Murdoch not any Christian God.

Hate to burst your bubble but I am an atheist and no fan of big business.

Mr M was a naughty boy and got caught. The end.

So tell me how do you justify any judgemental comments about Christian marriage?

Marriage vows are not about religon but are a promise to a loved one. He broke a promise and clearly lied. Shows MrM to be extremely untrustworthy and dishonest.

autogyro, when I said it's perfectly legal to be one I was referring to being a Ferrari owner and not a criminal

And I gave the Briatore example because his private life was also busy, but even if he didn't cheat in his private life he was called a pimp. Whereas Mosley did cheat and is being defended. I'm seeing a double standard here, which when calling for tolerance or respect is ironic.

I agree Mosley or anyone shouldn't be exposed like that in those circumstances and that the press is getting dirtier and dirtier. This should be exposed exclusively to the concerning parts, like his family and employers. But this is also unfortunately mostly a matter of purely personal perspective, as the modus operandi of the media is increasingly pointing towards this way and depending on who or what you expose you are hero or villain.

For instance, when WikiLeaks revealed the IPCC e-mails it gained near zero popularity or credibility. When it revealed documents supposedly embarrassing the US diplomacy, it was treated as hero and became hugely popular.

As for the marriage, I'm with andrew. There's no need for religion or personal moral believes to demand loyalty. Of course if two people agree to have multiple partners then that's another thing, but Mosley constituted a traditional exclusive union and cheated on it. That's why even if the press actions were wrong, so were Mosley's.

WhiteBlue, I don't see nobody so far having prejudice against you, at least to the extent of the words written here. The thing about tolerance is that it works in every way, as much for the "majority" opinions and actions as for the "minority" or "different" ones. If you can defend BDSM up until a certain extent, so can other people contest it to a certain extent and not have the obligation to like it. With this in mind and also how serious it is to have or to accuse prejudice, it's better to take more care before accusing other people on those grounds.

autogyro, when I said it's perfectly legal to be one I was referring to being a Ferrari owner and not a criminal

I know what you meant. It was not what you wrote but I apologise for playing word games.However the Ferrari issue still has nothing to do with privacy legislation.

And I gave the Briatore example because his private life was also busy, but even if he didn't cheat in his private life he was called a pimp. Whereas Mosley did cheat and is being defended. I'm seeing a double standard here, which when calling for tolerance or respect is ironic.

Any reference to Briatore being a pimp was based on information not in the public area. I am not defending Max Mosley, again this is not the issue so there are no double standards.

I agree Mosley or anyone shouldn't be exposed like that in those circumstances and that the press is getting dirtier and dirtier. This should be exposed exclusively to the concerning parts, like his family and employers. But this is also unfortunately mostly a matter of purely personal perspective, as the modus operandi of the media is increasingly pointing towards this way and depending on who or what you expose you are hero or villain.

I am glad we agree on the corrupt way in which the media operates, this is the core of the issue. However how and to whom private information is exposed, is not a matter of personal perspective, it is a matter of law.

For instance, when WikiLeaks revealed the IPCC e-mails it gained near zero popularity or credibility. When it revealed documents supposedly embarrassing the US diplomacy, it was treated as hero and became hugely popular.

The internet is the biggest problem for personal privacy and the defence of human rights for the future. There is hardly any control over what is posted on the net world wide and when people wake up to this, there will be huge changes to human economic, social, political, moral and legal principles.

"As for the marriage, I'm with andrew. There's no need for religion or personal moral believes to demand loyalty. Of course if two people agree to have multiple partners then that's another thing, but Mosley constituted a traditional exclusive union and cheated on it. That's why even if the press actions were wrong, so were Mosley's".

Again the issue is not anybodys opinion as to whether Max Mosley did something wrong. The newspaper was found in breach of the law and punished for it. Max Mosley was innocent of any crime and yet his wife and family were punished by the criminal actions of the media.

"WhiteBlue, I don't see nobody so far having prejudice against you, at least to the extent of the words written here. The thing about tolerance is that it works in every way, as much for the "majority" opinions and actions as for the "minority" or "different" ones. If you can defend BDSM up until a certain extent, so can other people contest it to a certain extent and not have the obligation to like it. With this in mind and also how serious it is to have or to
accuse prejudice, it's better to take more care before accusing other people on those grounds".

IMO WB has not defended BDSM. He has simply said that it is popular in some areas of society and is not illegal.
I find it strange as well that for some unknown reason WB is accused of defending BDSM. Very strange.

The Ferrari issue is almost as much a personal choice as is sexuality, that's my point.

About the Internet, remember that it's a fundamentally good tool. As any tool, it can be used for the bad as well. Legislation will, like you said, adapt to this knew tool just like any other thing. But Mosley did something wrong unless his wife was ok with it, so indeed it's not a matter of opinion. If his wife didn't agree with it, he just did it.

As for the use of the term defend, speaking for myself, I meant it in the sense of defending the right to do it. I'm not saying WB is defending the practice itself.

Agenda_Is_Incorrect wrote:The Ferrari issue is almost as much a personal choice as is sexuality, that's my point.

About the Internet, remember that it's a fundamentally good tool. As any tool, it can be used for the bad as well. Legislation will, like you said, adapt to this knew tool just like any other thing. But Mosley did something wrong unless his wife was ok with it, so indeed it's not a matter of opinion. If his wife didn't agree with it, he just did it.

As for the use of the term defend, speaking for myself, I meant it in the sense of defending the right to do it. I'm not saying WB is defending the practice itself.

The Ferrari issue has nothing to do with privacy. There are opinions as to how responsible to the environment those who buy Ferraris are but this is not private information about them, in fact people who buy Ferraris on the whole want exposure for their choice (this is going to change). It is Ferrari themselves who have been found out massaging their vehicle performance figures and building hybrid cars designed to avoid some areas of the emmision regulations, so as to continue with dirty liquid fuel wasting technology.

If everyone who cheated on his wife or was involved with unusual sexual practise was exposed by the criminal media, there would be very few people left in important positions within society.(you want this to remain a lottery)

The modern bigoted holier than though attitude that seems common in our secular society, is going to be a major problem in the future with the explosion of communication. We are already seeing the demise of corrupt regimes and believe me this is happening very much because of the internet and access to it.
It may well accelerate the demise of F1, as it is seen by many as a polluting indulgence. Fortunately it should see the end of conventional news gathering and the finish of people like the Murdochs, although we must be very careful to control how they manipulate our society in the short term. That is the present danger.

andrew wrote:Marriage vows are not about religon but are a promise to a loved one. He broke a promise and clearly lied. Shows MrM to be extremely untrustworthy and dishonest.

I think we can disregard this opinion as it has no relation to legal principles. It is simply driven by negative emotions. If one wanted to destroy the life of every public figure who has a failed relationship or marriage we could just as well ask them to walk on water. Half of all marriages get divorced and of the other half on close inspection you would find the majority experienced marital infidelity at one point.