Max Mosley

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
This story has everything - issues of censorship, kinky sex, nazism and the Mosley family name and Formula 1 (but that's boring so forget about that bit). As I understand it the News of the World got wind of Mosley's s & m pecadilloes and paid one of his companions to film him at it. Much to their delight they discovered that there were elements that arguably related to nazism which obviously made the whole story that bit more salacious and, wary of the fact that in similar situations when they had offered a right of reply to the victim of the sting they had had injunctions slapped on the proposed article, they decided to skip that inconvenient stage and go straight ahead with "Sick Nazi Sex" headlines.
When the story broke Mosley faced a no-confidence vote from the F1 world which he survived. He then decided to go after the news of the screws for damages arguing that it wasn't any of their business what he got up to - and he wasn't doing any of that nazi stuff anyway.
So, I guess the questions are - should a paper be able to film someone having sex just because they are in the public eye? If they do have kinky sex should that affect their competence in other areas? Does it make any difference if there was nazism involved in that sex? Even though it's probably a bit horrible to film someone having sex do we really want people to be able to go after newspapers that do it in court and what further consequences will it have if he wins? And, most importantly, why did he want to be called Timothy Barnes?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/08/newsoftheworld.privacy
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
IdleRich said:
This story has everything - issues of censorship, kinky sex, nazism and the Mosley family name and Formula 1 (but that's boring so forget about that bit). As I understand it the News of the World got wind of Mosley's s & m pecadilloes and paid one of his companions to film him at it. Much to their delight they discovered that there were elements that arguably related to nazism which obviously made the whole story that bit more salacious and, wary of the fact that in similar situations when they had offered a right of reply to the victim of the sting they had had injunctions slapped on the proposed article, they decided to skip that inconvenient stage and go straight ahead with "Sick Nazi Sex" headlines.
When the story broke Mosley faced a no-confidence vote from the F1 world which he survived. He then decided to go after the news of the screws for damages arguing that it wasn't any of their business what he got up to - and he wasn't doing any of that nazi stuff anyway.
So, I guess the questions are - should a paper be able to film someone having sex just because they are in the public eye? If they do have kinky sex should that affect their competence in other areas? Does it make any difference if there was nazism involved in that sex? Even though it's probably a bit horrible to film someone having sex do we really want people to be able to go after newspapers that do it in court and what further consequences will it have if he wins? And, most importantly, why did he want to be called Timothy Barnes?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/08/newsoftheworld.privacy
Click to expand...


In normal circumstances I'd be in favour of an individual's right to privacy. But he's a nazi* cunt, so fuck him. And if the NOTW want to use my carefully contrsucted and nuanced argument in their defence, they can have that one on me.


*allegedly
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"In normal circumstances I'd be in favour of an individual's right to privacy. But he's a nazi* cunt, so fuck him. And if the NOTW want to use my carefully contrsucted and nuanced argument in their defence, they can have that one on me."
Click to expand...
This actually seems to be the argument that Mosley is fighting back against doesn't it? As far as I can tell he is spending more time trying to prove that there was no nazi element ("I just thought I'd kill two birds with one stone and brush up on my German at the same time") than to questioning the morality and legality of secretly filming him.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
IdleRich said:
This actually seems to be the argument that Mosley is fighting back against doesn't it? As far as I can tell he is spending more time trying to prove that there was no nazi element ("I just thought I'd kill two birds with one stone and brush up on my German at the same time") than to questioning the morality and legality of secretly filming him.
Click to expand...

His argument, as I understand it, is that he can't possibly be a Nazi because he's given all that money to New Labour. But he did support his dad's party and, so far as I know, has never specifically disowned his or his father's past. So I reckon we can call him what we like (allegedly).
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"His argument, as I understand it, is that he can't possibly be a Nazi because he's given all that money to New Labour. But he did support his dad's party and, so far as I know, has never specifically disowned his or his father's past. So I reckon we can call him what we like (allegedly)."
Click to expand...
But if he is a nazi in the bedroom does that really matter? Isn't it perfectly possible to have some kind of weird nazi sex obsession without being a nazi or actually subscribing to any of their beliefs?
Who is it who watches nazisploitation films?

http://www.s131592573.websitehome.co.uk/gestorgy.html
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
IdleRich said:
But if he is a nazi in the bedroom does that really matter? Isn't it perfectly possible to have some kind of weird nazi sex obsession without being a nazi or actually subscribing to any of their beliefs?
Click to expand...

Of course, of course, consenting adults an' all that. I'm not really trying to mount some philosophical defence here (I think unless you're either in politics or marketing yourself as married and monogamous a la Beckhams, then you should be protected from tabloid scumbags rummaging through your used condoms), I'm just saying he's a Nazi*, fuck him.


*allegedly

Who is it who watches nazisploitation films?
Click to expand...

Um, you?
 
swears

swears

preppy-kei
Allegedly, he cried out "Gott Himmel!" and "Zer var iz over for you, Tommy!" in the throws of passion.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Allegedly, he cried out "Gott Himmel!" and "Zer var iz over for you, Tommy!" in the throws of passion."
Click to expand...
He probably said Schnell Schnell at some point as well.

This bit seems a tad unconvincing

one of the other women who was playing a prisoner being punished cried out "but we are the Aryan race, the blondes". Woman A, who spoke that line, claimed not to know what the word "Aryan" meant and had merely blurted it out on the spur of the moment.
Click to expand...
Weird how she just came up with the word out of nowhere and then fitted it into a sentence where it made perfect sense (although obviously the sentence itself was totally incongruous because there was nothing in any way related to nazism going on no sir definitely not) - it kind of vindicates the monkey typewriter thing.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
swears said:
o shi, fanks.

Not as bad as when I was 13 and would I'd pronounce "orgy" with a hard "G".
Click to expand...

You're in good company - that's how John Cale pronounces it in 'The Man Who Couldn't Afford To Orgy'.

Also, I like the idea that you regularly had cause to use the word 'orgy' at the age of 13. :)
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
now this is a bit weird

Max Mosley, the head of international motorsport, instigated a “crime upon himself” by taking part in a five-hour S&M orgy, according to the editor of the News of the World.

Colin Myler argued that it was right to publish details of this “criminal” act as it was in the public interest to expose the illicit behaviour of the president of the FIA, which governs Formula One.

Mr Myler said that the brutal role-play, which included the 68-year-old being caned until blood was drawn, did not just have a Nazi element to it, but also a “potential criminal flavour”.
Click to expand...

is it against the law to draw blood during sex? (No Rolf Harris jokes pls Tea)
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
john eden said:
Intent + Injury + Sexual Pleasure = Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) I remember correctly from the "Spanner" trial:

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

So if you happen to draw blood by accident, it isn't.
Click to expand...

So if the intent was Mosley's and the people drawing the blood were (we assume) acting on his wishes ("ve vere only obeying orders" - sorry dunno where that came from), who's the guilty party? Him or them?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
crackerjack said:
So if the intent was Mosley's and the people drawing the blood were (we assume) acting on his wishes ("ve vere only obeying orders" - sorry dunno where that came from), who's the guilty party? Him or them?
Click to expand...

But what if they were acting out a role-play, where they had to order him to pay them to beat him (against, but secret in accord with, his wishes)?

*head asplode*
 
Last edited:
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
crackerjack said:
So if the intent was Mosley's and the people drawing the blood were (we assume) acting on his wishes ("ve vere only obeying orders" - sorry dunno where that came from), who's the guilty party? Him or them?
Click to expand...

Fuck knows, it's completely mental.

Somebody got done for assaulting themselves during the trial if I remember rightly.


Mr Tea: What, they actually assaulted themselves in the Old Bailey? /Mr Tea
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
Mr. Tea said:
But what if they were acting out a role-play, where they had to order him to pay them to beat him (against, but secret because of, his wishes)?

*head asplode*
Click to expand...

I think it's best to just lock them all up really.

Or would they enjoy that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top