Found this letter to Nelson Sr.

[SZ]

Perhaps he meant regretting he didn't do it properly? Just thinking outloud...

Or maybe he should have struck a deal with Max so that he escaped sanction but Todt would have been banned for life.

He's reading this thread and roundly kicking himself on both counts, surely

[autogyro]

Semantics of UK law maybe, but I can kick you out of MY house for ANY reason I want. If you won't leave, and attack me, I can defend myself and property and family with lethal force. It wouldn't likely come to that, as I can call the police and have you removed for trespassing.

To say that I can walk into your house, and stay as long as I want is rubbish, to coin a UK word.

Not true at all - in your scenario if you remove the "and attack me" bit then there is nothing you or the police can do. They have to apply for a court order to remove someone.

If you are attacked THEN you can use reasonable force, but if the other person is peacefully squatting then there isn't a whole lot you can do without the courts.

Wanna bet

[myurr]

Wanna bet

Yup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatters_rights

[Giblet]

This is OT, but still, c'mon.

I live in the house, squatting is for unoccupied buildings. I don't know about the UK, but in Canada you can't live in any occupied house you want. Your rights to the property are that there must be an unimpeded path to the front door, and that is all.


Trespassing:

"Property owners and their agents (for example, security guards) may only use reasonable force to protect their property. For example, setting booby traps on a property to hurt trespassers and shooting at trespassers are usually forbidden except in extreme circumstances. Several US states, however, preserve to varying degrees the Castle Doctrine, a concept from English common law allowing the use of deadly force against trespassers the break into the home, only. The US state of Texas in particular has especially broad guidelines for the acceptable use of deadly force.[1]"

Find me a judge who thinks that asking someone to leave, or even pushing them out the door is not reasonable force. "BUT I WAS SQUATTING" will unlikely fly.

[myurr]

This is OT, but still, c'mon.

I live in the house, squatting is for unoccupied buildings. I don't know about the UK, but in Canada you can't live in any occupied house you want. Your rights to the property are that there must be an unimpeded path to the front door, and that is all.


Trespassing:

"Property owners and their agents (for example, security guards) may only use reasonable force to protect their property. For example, setting booby traps on a property to hurt trespassers and shooting at trespassers are usually forbidden except in extreme circumstances. Several US states, however, preserve to varying degrees the Castle Doctrine, a concept from English common law allowing the use of deadly force against trespassers the break into the home, only. The US state of Texas in particular has especially broad guidelines for the acceptable use of deadly force.[1]"

Find me a judge who thinks that asking someone to leave, or even pushing them out the door is not reasonable force. "BUT I WAS SQUATTING" will unlikely fly.

In the UK things are a little more perverse. There have been cases where squatters have taken over houses whilst people have been on holiday, etc.

Also the trespassing rules are less strict in the UK - reasonable and proportional force may only be used if you are threatened. In all other instances the police must deal with the situation, and the don't have powers of removal without a court order.

[rjsa]

I'm sorry that I lack the proper English wording from now on, but here it goes:

FIA is a private associations which assemble groups of people with common interests. FOM is a privately geld company.

FIA never used force to keep FB from their premises, they just denied him access and threatened every associate with banning if they held business with FB. That should be legal.

I don'k know a thing about British law, but here in Brazil when you apply to any kind of club or association your file and picture will be hanging on the main entrance for a full month and if one single associate denies your application your are done. That's right to free association.

[myurr]

I'm sorry that I lack the proper English wording from now on, but here it goes:

FIA is a private associations which assemble groups of people with common interests. FOM is a privately geld company.

FIA never used force to keep FB from their premises, they just denied him access and threatened every associate with banning if they held business with FB. That should be legal.

I don'k know a thing about British law, but here in Brazil when you apply to any kind of club or association your file and picture will be hanging on the main entrance for a full month and if one single associate denies your application your are done. That's right to free association.

The FIA are an internationally recognised governing body and as such are bound by the appropriate laws. They're not just a small private club, they're a sporting body and commercial enterprise. Hence the French courts having jurisdiction, and ruling that the FIA must adhere to the laws of the land, such as right to a fair trial.

[rjsa]

mods please delete...

[rjsa]

I'm sorry that I lack the proper English wording from now on, but here it goes:

FIA is a private associations which assemble groups of people with common interests. FOM is a privately geld company.

FIA never used force to keep FB from their premises, they just denied him access and threatened every associate with banning if they held business with FB. That should be legal.

I don't know a thing about British law, but here in Brazil when you apply to any kind of club or association your file and picture will be hanging on the main entrance for a full month and if one single associate denies your application your are done. That's right to free association.

The FIA are an internationally recognised governing body and as such are bound by the appropriate laws. They're not just a small private club, they're a sporting body and commercial enterprise. Hence the French courts having jurisdiction, and ruling that the FIA must adhere to the laws of the land, such as right to a fair trial.

FIA answers to french law due to sitting on french soil. No more than that.

EDIT: BTW, FIA is a governing body to those who will to be governed by them. FIA has no rights over car racing what so ever. You can start as many racing series as you wish without FIA's approval.

[autogyro]

You can try but without FIA regulations and the huge raft of experience behind them, no government on the planet will allow your races without a lot of thought.

[timbo]

You can try but without FIA regulations and the huge raft of experience behind them, no government on the planet will allow your races without a lot of thought.

Seems like US government don't share your opinion.

[Rob W]

You should not believe cheap propaganda. All the paperwork was sent to Briatore in his role as the team principal.......

It's telling than, in other threads, you're so quick to jump on other's claims which come without what you deem as 'proof' when dismissing them as wrong yet you're are happy to make evidence-free claims yourself.

Do you have some evidence that all the paperwork was sent to Briatore?

Actually, no need... You all-but conceded you don't know what happened only a few posts later.

Bull, neither you nor I do know exactly the flow of papers over Briatore's desk until he retired.....

Propaganda is the deliberate spreading of information to help or harm a person or group. Sure, Briatore is guilty of conducting a bit of his own in this case, but Max wrote the book on it.

[autogyro]

You can try but without FIA regulations and the huge raft of experience behind them, no government on the planet will allow your races without a lot of thought.

Seems like US government don't share your opinion.

When did the American government ever think?
Touche I think.

[WhiteBlue]

WB, even Schumacher himself admitted the crime.

http://www.crash.net/F1/news/154568/1/s ... could.html

1. This wasn't a crime. It was dangerous and unsporting driving and punished as that.

2. I have never said it was ok. I denied Jerez 97 was pre meditated and the team or Jean Todt was involved in it.

There are two clear transgression which I have never denied in Schumacher's career. Jerez 97 and Rascasse 2006. Both were punished and both were neither criminal nor premeditated or planned by the team. Singapore 2008 and any of the accidents Schumacher was involved in is simply not comparable. People who allege that they are, are simply not arguing in good faith. I don't know what is driving them to fabricate this rubbish. Certainly I will not waste time to argue with them. We do not agree on very fundamental things and this excludes any further debate on this issue from my side, full stop.

Back on topic. Singapore 2008 was a criminal conspiracy planned many hours before the race. Piquet and Symmonds independently testified to it. They were conspirators. Those are facts. Nobody can deny that the crime happened under the Briatore's responsibility and that he failed to take any action to investigate and punish the conspirators between Silverstone 2009 and his retirement. For this Renault made him retire and the FiA needs to find a way to keep him retired. I'm confident that they will. The FiA may have used wrong means to get rid of Briatore but they are working on getting it right. That is good enough for me.

[SZ]

Brace yourself folks, he's had a day off and NOW HE'S BACK!

1. This wasn't a crime. It was dangerous and unsporting driving and punished as that.

Dangerous, unsporting, and also an attempt to fix the race result - hey, just like Singapore 08! Though had something serious happened at Jerez to Villeneuve as a result of the Red Baron deliberately driving into someone else, I can't imagine the Spanish legal system taking a step back...

2. I have never said it was ok. I denied Jerez 97 was pre meditated and the team or Jean Todt was involved in it.

Horseshit. That was the FIA's excuse to keep Schumacher - in a red car - driving in the 98 season that could have been Ferrari's championship year (and a bumper year for revenue for Mr E). Show me the difference between 'I'm going to deliberately crash into you to take you out of the race and change the race result' and 'I'm going to deliberately crash into you - this is premeditated - to take you out of the race and change the result'. The end result is the same. The potential for danger is the same. I'm sure Villeneuve doesn't see much difference.

A deliberate action is, by definition, a considered one. A premeditated action is, by definition, a considered one. The intention is the same, and is not measured in magnitude (not by law or regulation be it criminal or FIA) but the length of time between the intention and the action resulting from it. Stay at home if you're going to play word games. Schumacher's actions were reprehensible, life-endangering and his team was told beforehand to reign him in - Max's exact words at the time were 'we don't want a repeat of 1994'.

Be consistent in your logic. You've tried 'the FIA should ban Briatore because he's guilty', but there's no proof. So now you'r on 'the FIA should ban Briatore as he's team principal and ultimately responsible'. If true they should have tried Todt a number of times. Take your pick or invent a new excuse. The current ones are looking tired.

There are two clear transgression which I have never denied in Schumacher's career. Jerez 97 and Rascasse 2006.

Ha ha ha... that's all? Schumacher was as consistent at being a brilliant driver as he was at having a flexible morality on track. You're blind.

Both were punished and both were neither criminal nor premeditated or planned by the team. Singapore 2008 and any of the accidents Schumacher was involved in is simply not comparable.

Both were hardly punished relative to the transgressions of the sporting code they represented.

The team was hardly investigated, despite insisting all was OK on each instant. I don't know what colour they report their pro-Schu rants in WhiteBlue country though in the country of his employers the press were livid.

People who allege that they are, are simply not arguing in good faith. I don't know what is driving them to fabricate this rubbish. Certainly I will not waste time to argue with them.

That's the spirit to bring to a discussion board! My way or fck off.
Very reasonable chap you are.

. We do not agree on very fundamental things and this excludes any further debate on this issue from my side, full stop.

Yay =D>

Singapore 2008 was a criminal conspiracy

No it's not, it doesn't break Singaporean criminal law at all. Appreciably 'criminal' seems to be your new favourite adjective when describing these events, but as you say, let's get back on topic. And the topic isn't 'criminal'.

A 'criminal' matter that transcends the FIA's jurisdiction would be - hypothetically - the death of a driver arising from some other idiot deliberately driving into them whether the team argued 'deliberate but not premeditated' or not. The appropriate charge (which applies under Singaporean law) would be manslaughter. There's only one driver that's come close - twice - in recent memory. Touchy subject for you and all that.

The last criminal investigation in F1 resulted from a driver's death.

Singapore 2008... planned many hours before the race. Piquet and Symmonds independently testified to it. They were conspirators. Those are facts.

Yup. Agreed. Amusing that one gets off and the other slightly early retirement after writing a nice letter.

That's an excellent precedent for a 'criminal' case, incidentally. Write a nice letter, reduce your sentence.

What a joke.

Nobody can deny that the crime happened under the Briatore's responsibility

This is indeed what his business card said at the time.

and that he failed to take any action to investigate and punish the conspirators between Silverstone 2009 and his retirement.

Actually it'd be a fair defence in a court of law, as there's been no solid evidence brought forward that Flav even knew - other than that which the FIA highest-ranked lawyer requested at the last moment, had fabricated and that Flav had no access to.

Consider that carefully. A lawyer presiding over the matter (Max) reviews the existing evidence and admits that there's not enough here to make a solid case against the guy. So he puts in a last-minute request for some more.

That you and autogyro then prattle on about 'well he had a chance to defend himself!' is pure horseshit.

If he employs lawyers that passed their first semester of law school they'd advise him it's a kangaroo court, that it won't stand up in a real court of law, and to stay away.

For this Renault made him retire

What are you, 12 years old? Are you that naive?

The FIA offered Renault two alternatives before the trial ever took place: you can not race with him or go on racing without him. Hence he was asked to leave a company that couldn't prove his culpability, and the dance of the WMSC played out as it did.

the FiA needs to find a way to keep him retired. I'm confident that they will. The FiA may have used wrong means to get rid of Briatore but they are working on getting it right. That is good enough for me.

So at the end of all of this you admit the process used to try him is flawed, but that you want him out of the sport anyway, and that you're happy to support the notion no matter what logic comes your way.

What's the term for that guys? Thinking... fanboy? No that's not it... thinking... thinking...

...Oh that's right. Forum troll. Got it.