Mosley on the breakaway series and the renegotiation of the Concorde Agreement
Bob Dubery
http://gentleurl.net/UXLAT/
Go on! He's not the devil incarnate. It's an interesting read.
"The loss of BMW and Toyota (as well as Honda) is sad because it was
so unnecessary. The only light relief has been the Ferrari suggestion
that this was all a plot (by me) to get rid of the manufacturers. To
believe this it is necessary to assume that the bosses of BMW and
Toyota were lying when they gave the need to save costs as their
reason for leaving. You also have to believe they needed to hide the
truth for some mysterious reason. "
peter
Reads like total BS.
--
"This is slave 'Max' a dirty rubber slut!"
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
Sounded plausible to me. What specifically struck you as being BS?
News
This would be hilarious, if it were not so sad.
Max cannot be the issue, it must be <anything else>.
A reaction like Nathan Thurm, the SNL character played by Martin Short.
A shady lawyer, Thurm was a chain-smoker, quite paranoid, and constantly
in denial about his paranoia. "I'm not being defensive. You're the one
who's being defensive."
When questioned, his catch phrase often included, "It's so funny to me
that you would think..." He would also look into the camera and express
his puzzlement at the questioner by asking, "Is it me, or is it him? ...
It's him, right?"
Other times, he would deny an accusation, then immediately reverse his
position when the accuser reaffirmed the statement. "No, it isn't!"
("Yes it is.") "I know that! Why wouldn't I know that? I'm well aware of
that!"
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > Interesting reading at
> >http://gentleurl.net/UXLAT/
>
> > Go on! He's not the devil incarnate. It's an interesting read.
>
> > "The loss of BMW and Toyota (as well as Honda) is sad because it was
> > so unnecessary. The only light relief has been the Ferrari suggestion
> > that this was all a plot (by me) to get rid of the manufacturers. To
> > believe this it is necessary to assume that the bosses of BMW and
> > Toyota were lying when they gave the need to save costs as their
> > reason for leaving. You also have to believe they needed to hide the
> > truth for some mysterious reason. "
>
> This would be hilarious, if it were not so sad.
>
> Max cannot be the issue, it must be <anything else>.
>
And he admits to a mistake that he made (in this case a mistake of
omission rather than one of commission). That's usually a good sign.
News
Hardly a full and complete confession...
Bob Dubery
There's another article on the Telegraph web site in which Mosley
talks about Stepneygate. He recounts how after the first hearing he
got an angry phone call from the CEO of Ferrari, but he just said that
no matter what anybody thinks there has to be evidence if a guilty
verdict is to be delivered. Which is reasonable enough and generally a
good standard to adopt.
So with that in mind, what's he supposed to be confessing to here?
AC
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f7d41b2-67e6-4858...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
While it reads like a reasonable and plausible account, I guess there are
many who will simply write it off.
They will say everything he says is lies
They will say that any body quoted who agree with him must be lying.
They will suggest that any one against Mosley, is inherently truthful and
honest, and must not be questioned.
And so it will go on.
Yet we get no actual argument, just people slinging mud. It no good saying
Max is a liar, but then relying on statement from someone like Flavio to
"prove" it. Ok, some one says Max is just a liar, fine, then FOTA are a
bunch of liars. That cancels out, so, next point please. Either its
discussed at face value for all parties, or the discussion is completely
pointless. We either accept what they all say and discuss it, or assume they
are all liars and quit now.
The only thing that I have a problem with is the notion that he has any
place having influence on his successor and deciding that some are
unsuitable. I don't believe that its any business of an elected leader to
arrange succession. Its the direct opposite of electing.
AC
peter
>On Dec 14, 1:23�pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
>> >Interesting reading at
>> >http://gentleurl.net/UXLAT/
>>
>
>Sounded plausible to me. What specifically struck you as being BS?
>
That FOTA hadn't thought through the ramifications of setting up a rival
series while he had.
That Molesley was going to leave the presidency anyway not that his
resignation was an explicit condition of FOTA resigning the Concorde
agreement.
And no doubt more if I could stand to reread his pathetic dissembling.
Bigbird
Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
plausible.
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
News
Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
Bigbird
More mudslinging and strawman arguments from AC, what a surprise.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes>On Dec 14, 1:23 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
> >> >Interesting reading at
> >> >http://gentleurl.net/UXLAT/
>
> >> Reads like total BS.
>
> >Sounded plausible to me. What specifically struck you as being BS?
>
> For a start...
> That FOTA hadn't thought through the ramifications of setting up a rival
> series while he had.
issues would have been. I was intrigued to read that FIA would have
sanctioned a breakaway series, indeed would have had to have good
grounds for not doing so.
Why is this so impossible anyway?
> That Molesley was going to leave the presidency anyway not that his
> resignation was an explicit condition of FOTA resigning the Concorde
> agreement.
Was that ever stated by any of the signatories to that agreement? I
know that it was claimed by some segments of the press, but that's not
the same thing at all.
What does seem fair to say is that Mosley wanted this agreement signed
so that he COULD resign and not leave loose ends. That's not the same
as the teams demanding that Mosley step down as a condition of signing
the agreement.
> And no doubt more if I could stand to reread his pathetic dissembling.
> --
> "This is slave 'Max' a dirty rubber slut!"
Does that sig of yours perhaps reveal some prejudice?
Bob Dubery
> Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
> recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
> plausible.
Well
a) Not Mosley's doing
b) WHo says alternatives were not examined?
c) I don't say it's a good thing, but it's a fact that in times of
recession people do lose jobs. Should BMW and Toyota be immune to
this?
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 3:08�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
> > recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
> > plausible.
>
> Well
> a) Not Mosley's doing
Who else.
> b) WHo says alternatives were not examined?
All the stories including Max's own point to intransigence on his part.
The teams wanted more time to downsize. He refused until he lost the
war.
> c) I don't say it's a good thing, but it's a fact that in times of
> recession people do lose jobs. Should BMW and Toyota be immune to
> this?
Should Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, STR, FI... Brawn
be forced into it, unnecessarily.
As with spygate, Max clearly had no concern for jobs of those who would
be affected by his decisions. He is not a nice person.
Chad
Well he could be struggling with his narcissism, delusional, in denial or
under control of aliens... it doesn't have to be *just* that he is a liar.
;-)
--
Chad
AC
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0giw399...@news.individual.net...
Thanks for making my point. Appreciated.
AC
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 3:08 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
> > > recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
> > > plausible.
>
> > Well
> > a) Not Mosley's doing
>
> Who else.
>
> > b) WHo says alternatives were not examined?
>
> All the stories including Max's own point to intransigence on his part.
> The teams wanted more time to downsize. He refused until he lost the
> war.
they knew) what they didn't want. They had less of an idea about what
they did want.
We have to remember that what the teams want (or say they do, when
they can agree) is not necessarily what FIA want. And that's natural
because they have different concerns.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong in taking a hard line when
negotiating is there? Especially early on because you have to give
yourself some room for making concessions. Either somebody has to fold
or concessions have to be made. So if you want 1/2 the pie you better
go in with guns blazing and say you want 3/4 and then allow yourself
to be bargained down to 1/2.
How intransigent were the teams being? AS intransigent? More?
Here's another reading of the situation: Mosley called their bluff,
figuring that they knew that the breakaway series wasn't properly
thought out and may well not fly.
>
> > c) I don't say it's a good thing, but it's a fact that in times of
> > recession people do lose jobs. Should BMW and Toyota be immune to
> > this?
>
> Should Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, STR, FI... Brawn
> be forced into it, unnecessarily.
Forced into what? And by who? Brawn shed jobs this year. That's purely
down to costs. Nothing to do with FIA. F1 teams are not immune to what
is happening in the greater world.
>
> As with spygate, Max clearly had no concern for jobs of those who would
> be affected by his decisions. He is not a nice person.
Come on! That's like arguing that when an athlete gets bust taking
performance enhancing drugs that it's the IOC's fault that all those
people in the laboratory are out of a job. I agree that it's not those
people's fault - that doesn't mean that it's the IOC's fault. It's
like arguing that when Shane Warne got kicked out of the Cricket World
Cup for taking a prohibited drug that the ICC (or was it Cricket
Australia?) were endangering his livelihood or, because he was a star
player for his national team, making it less likely that the rest of
the team would bring home the big financial reward for winning the
tournament.
Since we know that Ferrari were arguing for sanctions against McLaren
before the was evidence we might as well, by your logic, regard them
as being party to any job losses at McLaren no?
Next thing you know it's going to be Max's fault that Flav and Symonds
aren't working for Renault any more.
This, by the way, is why team bosses shouldn't condone such
activities, and why when accusations arise they should investigate
very thoroughly to isolate the bad apples. THEY have a responsibility
to the employees. FIA don't.
Bob Dubery
> Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own time
with other consenting adults?
AC
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, far better that an entire team pulls out risking all jobs than cost
cutting losing some jobs. Hm, I see the logic there. Of course adding new
teams creates some jobs. But I guess that some how these are not counted as,
er, jobs.
Oh, and I'm loving this new socialist notion of F1 being there to create and
maintain jobs. Brilliant stuff. Keep that crayon moving.
AC
PoB
| Bob Dubery wrote:
|
| > On Dec 14, 3:08 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| > > Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
| > > recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
| > > plausible.
| >
| > Well
| > a) Not Mosley's doing
|
| Who else.
|
| > b) WHo says alternatives were not examined?
|
| All the stories including Max's own point to intransigence on his part.
| The teams wanted more time to downsize. He refused until he lost the
| war.
He refused until he realised that the teams had organised themselves into a
group had the power to render the FIA and all his pals irrelevant, and he
wanted/wants to continue basking in the glory that he has become accustomed
to.
| > c) I don't say it's a good thing, but it's a fact that in times of
| > recession people do lose jobs. Should BMW and Toyota be immune to
| > this?
|
| Should Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, STR, FI... Brawn
| be forced into it, unnecessarily.
|
| As with spygate, Max clearly had no concern for jobs of those who would
| be affected by his decisions. He is not a nice person.
As a person he's apparently very nice, even his detractors say he's
wonderful to have a drink with. As an individual that has taken on/been
given wide ranging powers he's
autocratic/centralising/dogmatic/inflexible/ruthless.
I think it's more a case of Max only ever looking at the decision (no
particular one, just decisions in general) as being as being the end in
itself, and never looking at the collateral effects (i.e. only looking at
objective matters, not subjective) - generally a desirable feature in a
lawyer where your choices are guilty or not, and it's up to the judge to
factor in the other matters.
Unfortunately, for someone who set himself up as advocate, jury and judge,
this myopic viewpoint led to decisions that some find questionable.
All the best
pOB
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 3:32�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 3:08�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
> > > > recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
> > > > plausible.
> >
> > > Well
> > > a) Not Mosley's doing
> >
> > Who else.
> BMW and Toyota are the companies shutting their race teams down.
That was not caused by the proposed cap, nor is there any suggestion
that the cap would have prevented it.
I think you have your knickers a little twisted.
> >
> > > b) WHo says alternatives were not examined?
> >
> > All the stories including Max's own point to intransigence on his
> > part. The teams wanted more time to downsize. He refused until he
> > lost the war.
> Here's another reading of the situation: The teams knew (or thought
> they knew) what they didn't want. They had less of an idea about what
> they did want.
>
Isn't that usually the case? If one person makes an abhorrent
suggestion isn't the first reaction disagreement rather than consensus?
Talks should have followed. They did not. Instead Max said you lot come
up with something and left them to it. That was not a great way forward.
He banked on them failing to reach a consensus. As it happened what he
achieved was them closing ranks against him. He failed to produce a
communicative and consultative environment in which to move forward.
Instead he sat back and was intransigent.
> We have to remember that what the teams want (or say they do, when
> they can agree) is not necessarily what FIA want. And that's natural
> because they have different concerns.
>
> There's nothing fundamentally wrong in taking a hard line when
> negotiating is there?
Yes, if it an oxymoron.
> Especially early on because you have to give
> yourself some room for making concessions. Either somebody has to fold
> or concessions have to be made. So if you want 1/2 the pie you better
> go in with guns blazing and say you want 3/4 and then allow yourself
> to be bargained down to 1/2.
>
> How intransigent were the teams being? AS intransigent? More?
>
> Here's another reading of the situation: Mosley called their bluff,
> figuring that they knew that the breakaway series wasn't properly
> thought out and may well not fly.
> >
> > > c) I don't say it's a good thing, but it's a fact that in times of
> > > recession people do lose jobs. Should BMW and Toyota be immune to
> > > this?
> >
> > Should Renault, McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams, STR, FI...
> > Brawn be forced into it, unnecessarily.
> Forced into what? And by who?
Who was proposing the cap that would ensure it?
I feel you are again bent on being argumentative rather than
considering what you are responding to.
> Brawn shed jobs this year. That's purely
> down to costs. Nothing to do with FIA. F1 teams are not immune to what
> is happening in the greater world.
I feel you do not have a grasp of the situation. The teams were and are
open to cost cutting measures.
If Mosley had his way Brawn would have had to have cut their workforce
even further putting many more out of jobs. I don't understand why you
think that was a necessary measure. Haven't you been proven wrong?
> >
> > As with spygate, Max clearly had no concern for jobs of those who
> > would be affected by his decisions. He is not a nice person.
>
> Come on! That's like arguing that when an athlete gets bust taking
> performance enhancing drugs that it's the IOC's fault that all those
> people in the laboratory are out of a job. I agree that it's not those
> people's fault - that doesn't mean that it's the IOC's fault. It's
> like arguing that when Shane Warne got kicked out of the Cricket World
> Cup for taking a prohibited drug that the ICC (or was it Cricket
> Australia?) were endangering his livelihood or, because he was a star
> player for his national team, making it less likely that the rest of
> the team would bring home the big financial reward for winning the
> tournament.
>
> Since we know that Ferrari were arguing for sanctions against McLaren
> before the was evidence we might as well, by your logic, regard them
> as being party to any job losses at McLaren no?
>
Mosley was alone in voting all those workers out of their livelihoods.
AFAIK Ferrari did not have a vote.
> Next thing you know it's going to be Max's fault that Flav and Symonds
> aren't working for Renault any more.
Are they innocent?
>
> This, by the way, is why team bosses shouldn't condone such
> activities, and why when accusations arise they should investigate
> very thoroughly to isolate the bad apples. THEY have a responsibility
> to the employees.
I agree.
> FIA don't.
I strongly disagree. The FIA have a responsibility to the whole
industry.
Bigbird
>
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0giw2zf...@news.individual.net...
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> >
> >>On Dec 14, 1:23 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
> wrote: >>> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
> > > >
> >>> > Interesting reading at
> >>> > http://gentleurl.net/UXLAT/
> > > >
> >>> > Go on! He's not the devil incarnate. It's an interesting read.
> > > >
> >>> > "The loss of BMW and Toyota (as well as Honda) is sad because it
> >>> > was so unnecessary. The only light relief has been the Ferrari
> >>> > suggestion that this was all a plot (by me) to get rid of the
> >>> > manufacturers. To believe this it is necessary to assume that
> the >>> > bosses of BMW and Toyota were lying when they gave the need
> to >>> > save costs as their reason for leaving. You also have to
> believe >>> > they needed to hide the truth for some mysterious
> reason. "
> > > >
> >>> Reads like total BS.
> > >
> > > Sounded plausible to me. What specifically struck you as being BS?
> >
> > Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
> > recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
> > plausible.
> >
>
> Yeah, far better that an entire team pulls out risking all jobs than
> cost cutting losing some jobs.
Some jobs? Up to 90% cut in budget. How many jobs?
Who is suggesting that any of the teams pulling out would not have done
so if the cap was in place.
> Hm, I see the logic there.
No, clearly you struggle.
> Of course
> adding new teams creates some jobs. But I guess that some how these
> are not counted as, er, jobs.
>
Is the cap in place? Are new teams joining?
So was it necessary to cut thousands of jobs to entice these new teams.
Go on, I know you're struggling but I am helping.
> Oh, and I'm loving this new socialist notion of F1 being there to
> create and maintain jobs.
You may be too stupid to realise it but F1 is an industry like many
others. It is not a socialist notion that government should not dictate
numbers of employees to the entrepreneurs.
In fact think long and hard and you may be able to think of a style of
government that does do this.
> Brilliant stuff. Keep that crayon moving.
>
Well if all you can read is crayon, imagine a big red C and see if that
helps you.
News
Ask Tiger.
peter
Paying for the pleasure of beating young girls is disreputable to most
people.
Alan LeHun
sco...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk says...
> Paying for the pleasure of beating young girls is disreputable to most
> people
>
Or being beaten by, even.
--
Alan LeHun
Bigbird
Can you recall nothing else that Max has said or done that has had a
detrimental effect on the reputation of the sport?
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 3:32 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14, 3:08 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
> > > > > recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
> > > > > plausible.
>
> > > > Well
> > > > a) Not Mosley's doing
>
> > > Who else.
> > BMW and Toyota are the companies shutting their race teams down.
>
> That was not caused by the proposed cap, nor is there any suggestion
> that the cap would have prevented it.
>
> I think you have your knickers a little twisted.
that because there's no evidence that Mosley's proposed budget cut
would have persuaded BMW and Toyota to stay in the sport that it must
be his fault that they quit.
So not my knickers. Just poor old logic and natural justice.
Anyway, since you seem to be a born again socialist (well, at least
there was a surprise at the end of the day's shenanigans) you can go
and sing a chorus or too of The Red Flag and show your solidarity with
the unemployed of the world and kid yourself that you did something,
unlike some facist, kinky dictators that you could name.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, News <N...@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
> >> Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
>
> >Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own time
> >with other consenting adults?
>
> Paying for the pleasure of beating young girls is disreputable to most
> people.
I mentioned consenting adults, and there's nothing to show that that
was not the case. "Young girls" is a suitably vague and relative term.
For me they could have been 40 and been "young". What sort of age
range were you thinking of?
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, News <N...@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
> > > Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
>
> > Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own time
> > with other consenting adults?
>
> Can you recall nothing else that Max has said or done that has had a
> detrimental effect on the reputation of the sport?
I think it's up to those who accuse him of bringing the sport into
disrepute to provide the examples.
So far the bloke I asked for details has been less than forthcoming.
peter
>On Dec 14, 9:00�pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
>> >with other consenting adults?
>>
>> Paying for the pleasure of beating young girls is disreputable to most
>> people.
>
>I mentioned consenting adults, and there's nothing to show that that
>was not the case. "Young girls" is a suitably vague and relative term.
>For me they could have been 40 and been "young". What sort of age
>range were you thinking of?
I'm thinking that paying young women to beat you and paying so that you
can beat them is not what I expect from the president of the
FIA...suggesting that S&M prostitution falls under the term "consenting
adults" is pushing the boundaries of the term too far.
Not all women take up prostitution as a life style or vocation through
choice but more often as a necessity and many are vulnerable damaged
young adults....but I guess in theory even you would allow Max to beat
you if you needed the money badly enough (for yourself or your
family)...but even though you would technically be a consenting adult
its hardly going to make you feel good about yourself.
News
> Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com> writes
>> On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, News <N...@Groups.Name> wrote:
>>
>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
>>
>> Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own time
>> with other consenting adults?
>
> Paying for the pleasure of beating young girls is disreputable to most
> people.
Let alone the alleged national socialist overtones.
Chad
> like arguing that when Shane Warne got kicked out of the Cricket World
> Cup for taking a prohibited drug that the ICC (or was it Cricket
> Australia?) were endangering his livelihood or, because he was a star
> player for his national team, making it less likely that the rest of
> the team would bring home the big financial reward for winning the
> tournament.
>
That was a bit if a beat up though.
Did anyone really think he took a diaretic for cheating purposes? Silly bunt
was just being vain about how fat he looked on the field.
--
Chad
Chad
The un-even handling of many decisons and the personal attacks via FIA press
release were pretty disreputable to me.
--
Chad
Chad
> On Dec 14, 10:00 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob Dubery wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, News <N...@Groups.Name> wrote:
>>
>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
>>
>>> Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own
>>> time with other consenting adults?
>>
>> Can you recall nothing else that Max has said or done that has had a
>> detrimental effect on the reputation of the sport?
>
> I think it's up to those who accuse him of bringing the sport into
> disrepute to provide the examples.
>
> So far the bloke I asked for details has been less than forthcoming.
Maybe they thought the statement was clear, before you tried to suggest sex
issues are all that he had a problem with.
--
Chad
build
G'day,
Perhaps someone would like to list the examples or admit they do not
exist.
I am not trying to be antagonistic.
beers,
build
News
Say no more.
build
> Chad wrote:
> > News wrote:
> >> peter wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, News <N...@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
> >>>> Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own
> >>>> time with other consenting adults?
> >>> Paying for the pleasure of beating young girls is disreputable to
> >>> most people.
> >> Let alone the alleged national socialist overtones.
>
> > The un-even handling of many decisons and the personal attacks via FIA press
> > release were pretty disreputable to me.
>
> Say no more.
How can you say no more when you have not said anything?
How about listing these many decisions and press releases?
beers,
build
News
With respect, 26,300 mentions...
Chad
Me either. It gets a bit tiring when so often the only response to an
opposing opinion is that the poster is mindlessly biased or too thick to be
possibly looking past an almost irrelevant issue, like Max's sexual
preferences, though.
I don't pretend to have followed the FIA closely enough to argue if Max
ended up being an overall positive to the sport or not. He did ok is
probably where my opinion lies. But if we just take the last year or so, his
autocratic move to enforce huge budget cuts starting in 2010 threw the sport
into turmoil, he made numerous personal and unprofessional statements via
FIA press release. He oversaw (and many would say manipulated via Donnelly)
questionable stewards decisions. I'm sure others here could come up with
more quickly.
Basically the major way he brought disrepute to the sport was by using the
FIA as a personal tool to enforce his personal will.
If you then add the brothel scandal on top of that, I don't see how anyone
can seriously question the OPs opinion about Max bringing the sport into
disrepute personally.
I also have to wonder if Max had so much foresight about the urgent need to
reduce budgets, how does he explain the imposition of KERS for 2009?
--
Chad
build
G'day News,
You still have not said anything. Are you arguing a point that you
cannot support? Can you list those decisions, etc without resorting to
google? If you are not interested in supporting your position so it
can be discussed, that's OK too. I'm just interested in the
discussion.
beers,
build
News
With respect, this newsgroup endured the discussion during most of 2008
and 2009.
Sorry if you missed it.
build
With respect (truly) I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity in your
assertion. Surely you've typed 5 lines in reply, why not 5 decisions
that bring the sport into disrepute?
tia
build
Bob Dubery
It doesn't matter actually. A sportsman at his level, with the
facilities made available to him, should have known better. He took a
prohibited substance.
And by Bird's logic it would have been CA and/or the ICC that were
responsible for the little Warnes not getting their pocket money and
for his manager getting less commission. Which is BS. The guy who
would have been responsible was Warne.
News
Let me summarize it in one line:
Over a very long time, Max's use and abuse of his position as head of
FIA as a personal bully pulpit brought disrepute to the sport..
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >On Dec 14, 9:00 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
> >> >Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own time
> >> >with other consenting adults?
>
> >> Paying for the pleasure of beating young girls is disreputable to most
> >> people.
>
> >I mentioned consenting adults, and there's nothing to show that that
> >was not the case. "Young girls" is a suitably vague and relative term.
> >For me they could have been 40 and been "young". What sort of age
> >range were you thinking of?
>
> I'm thinking that paying young women to beat you and paying so that you
> can beat them is not what I expect from the president of the
> FIA...
he made in his law suit. A president he promised to do his job as best
he could, he made no guarantees about his private life, nor were any
such guarantees sort. He was not elected for his private life, he was
elected to do a job. He didn't seek sponsorship or celebrity based on
a fictional squeaky image and reputation.
It was nobody else's business, it had nothing to do with his job.
> suggesting that S&M prostitution falls under the term "consenting
> adults" is pushing the boundaries of the term too far.
They were consenting adults. It's not pushing the boundaries too far.
Look, it's not my cup of tea. It doesn't repel me, I just don't
understand it, But we have to keep our own personal reflexes out of it
and try to be a little more objective. My view is that if adults want
to engage in acts that I wouldn't, but they do so freely and in
private then no real harm is done to the fabric of society.
> Not all women take up prostitution as a life style or vocation through
> choice but more often as a necessity and many are vulnerable damaged
> young adults....
That CAN be the case, but it's not the only case. I suggest you do a
little research here. The women who dobbed in Mosley was in the game
by choice, she was not kept in a brothel and Mosley did not secure her
services via some thuggish pimp.
> but I guess in theory even you would allow Max to beat
> you if you needed the money badly enough (for yourself or your
> family)...but even though you would technically be a consenting adult
> its hardly going to make you feel good about yourself.
That's the spirit. Can't deal with the message, try to portray the
messenger as compromised.
> "This is slave 'Max' a dirty rubber slut!"
You want to change that sig. Your objectivity is showing.
Chad
There really was quite a bit of discussion here about the press releases,
particularly during the breakaway series arguments.
For some reason the FIA website no longer has any of it's press releases
after June 2008 online right now.
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/f1.html
--
Chad
Bob Dubery
That's actually not very helpful when it comes to supporting your
claims. Look, if you don't have any actual facts at your disposal then
you're still entitled to your opinion. Though that doesn't always
convince. If it's my opinion that the earth is flat then you probably
don't want to spend too much time respecting that.
CatharticF1
news:xn0giw2zf...@news.individual.net:
> Bob Dubery wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 1:23�pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> > Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
>> >
>> > > Interesting reading at
>> > > http://gentleurl.net/UXLAT/
>> >
>> > > Go on! He's not the devil incarnate. It's an interesting read.
>> >
>> > > "The loss of BMW and Toyota (as well as Honda) is sad because it
>> > > was so unnecessary. The only light relief has been the Ferrari
>> > > suggestion that this was all a plot (by me) to get rid of the
>> > > manufacturers. To believe this it is necessary to assume that the
>> > > bosses of BMW and Toyota were lying when they gave the need to
>> > > save costs as their reason for leaving. You also have to believe
>> > > they needed to hide the truth for some mysterious reason. "
>> >
>> > Reads like total BS.
>>
>> Sounded plausible to me. What specifically struck you as being BS?
>
> Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of global
> recession without any attempt to look at alternatives was never
> plausible.
Two (perhaps obvious) points to make here.
1. I don't doubt that for large companies like BMW, Toyota and those that
stayed, *not* being able to spend limits the perceived extent to which
they can influence their competitiveness. If we can't use our resources -
what's the point?
2. Yes - reducing budgets so quickly would have reduced the money in the
sport to a level _below_ what it would imo otherwise sustain. To do so
quickly and without suitable transition would have caused unnecessary
pain for people in the industry. It's plainly not what this was about or
he would never have sanctioned KERS..
And to follow on from that: Where was all of the extra money from TV
rights etc going to go once the budgets were capped?
Oh and because no-one else has pointed it out: Mercedes have walked in
the door as BMW and Toyota have walked out.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
Chad
Oh yeah, no argument, Warne made the error and took his deserved medicine
without "too much" complaint.
Just didn't want to leave the Warne + Prohibited drug bit out there without
a little further explanation. ;-) He is a dufus, but still one of the
greatest sportsman in history imho.
--
Chad
Bob Dubery
> Two (perhaps obvious) points to make here.
>
> 1. I don't doubt that for large companies like BMW, Toyota and those that
> stayed, *not* being able to spend limits the perceived extent to which
> they can influence their competitiveness. If we can't use our resources -
> what's the point?
There isn't a strict budget cap in place. Toyota, who signed the
Concord Agreement, would certainly have known that.
And as Max says, there was no reason why BMW and/or Toyota couldn't
say something like "we do not consider that competing in F1 under the
new resource capping system aligns with our philosophy / aligns with
our vision of motorsport."
They simply said that it was a matter of cost.
So the most plausible explanation is that it was a matter of cost.
CatharticF1
news:58aebc15-2b68-4d09...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
They did?
> So the most plausible explanation is that it was a matter of cost.
Surely it's a question of returns vs cost.
It isn't too expensive for Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes.
APLer
news:168fbc50-7b9b-4fc7...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
Here's a quickie - mostly for the reasons explained in the followup to
your later posts. At the time FOTA explicitly said that Max *was* the
problem. No I don't have a reference for that, but if you like, I can
find one for you and put it in a different thread labelled appropriately
later.
APLer
> Interesting reading at
> http://gentleurl.net/UXLAT/
>
> Go on! He's not the devil incarnate. It's an interesting read.
>
> "The loss of BMW and Toyota (as well as Honda) is sad because it was
> so unnecessary. The only light relief has been the Ferrari suggestion
> that this was all a plot (by me) to get rid of the manufacturers. To
> believe this it is necessary to assume that the bosses of BMW and
> Toyota were lying when they gave the need to save costs as their
> reason for leaving. You also have to believe they needed to hide the
> truth for some mysterious reason. "
>
Sounds like a lot of rationalizing and attempts to paint over his
f*ckups to me. At the time the reason for the breakaway series was so
obviously about Max that any other explanation is pretty doubtful.
Anyone know who this prospective replacement ws that Max found so
unagreeable?
APLer
news:k4idnZCucsDStrvW...@speakeasy.net:
> A reaction like Nathan Thurm, the SNL character played by Martin Short.
>
> A shady lawyer, Thurm was a chain-smoker, quite paranoid, and constantly
> in denial about his paranoia. "I'm not being defensive. You're the one
> who's being defensive."
>
> When questioned, his catch phrase often included, "It's so funny to me
> that you would think..." He would also look into the camera and express
> his puzzlement at the questioner by asking, "Is it me, or is it him? ...
> It's him, right?"
>
> Other times, he would deny an accusation, then immediately reverse his
> position when the accuser reaffirmed the statement. "No, it isn't!"
> ("Yes it is.") "I know that! Why wouldn't I know that? I'm well aware of
> that!"
>
> Imagine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLBQxk72NY
For those who haven't seen it in higher definition (I don't do shockwave
any more - got tired of it's bugs) it also helps to know that his face was
plastered in sweat or vaseline in simulation thereof.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote innews:58aebc15-2b68-4d09...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 5:37 am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Two (perhaps obvious) points to make here.
>
> >> 1. I don't doubt that for large companies like BMW, Toyota and those
> >> that stayed, *not* being able to spend limits the perceived extent
> >> to which they can influence their competitiveness. If we can't use
> >> our resources - what's the point?
> > There isn't a strict budget cap in place. Toyota, who signed the
> > Concord Agreement, would certainly have known that.
>
> > And as Max says, there was no reason why BMW and/or Toyota couldn't
> > say something like "we do not consider that competing in F1 under the
> > new resource capping system aligns with our philosophy / aligns with
> > our vision of motorsport."
>
> > They simply said that it was a matter of cost.
>
> They did?
it's a resolute step in view of our company's strategic realignment.
Premium will be increasingly defined in terms of sustainability and
environmental compatibility. This is an area in which we want to
remain in the lead. Our Formula 1 campaign is thus less a key promoter
for us."
So, yes, not quite that straightforward, though it does seem to fit
with your reading of the situation IE that rewards did not justify the
costs.
Toyota cited "the current severe economic realities".
>
> > So the most plausible explanation is that it was a matter of cost.
>
> Surely it's a question of returns vs cost.
> It isn't too expensive for Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes.
Toyota were certainly losing money at the time (and, I think, for the
first time ever). It's difficult when a company whose core business is
not F1 is losing money and is spending millions on an F1 team that
isn't getting anyhere.
For the other teams you mention the situation is different. For
McLaren F1 is their business. For Ferrari F1 is central to their
business and image. Red Bull I might worry about if I knew how the
energy drinks business was doing.
Teams like Williams, McLaren and Ferrari are far more likely to stay
in F1 through tough economic times simply because F1 is ALL they do or
is central to what they do. With Renault, Toyota etc F1 is a
promotional activity.
Bob Dubery
> Sounds like a lot of rationalizing and attempts to paint over his
> f*ckups to me. At the time the reason for the breakaway series was so
> obviously about Max that any other explanation is pretty doubtful.
That doesn't amount to Max plotting to force out the manufacturers -
which was the suggestion.
Max taking a position that the manufacturers didn't agree with is one
thing (essentially he said that they were in F1 as long as it suited
them and would leave the moment it did't, so they are fickle and not
in F1 for F1's sake). But that he actively plotted against them is
quite another.
Besides, Toyota signed the Concord Agreement and knew that Max Mosley
would not be President of FIA in 2010, so they left F1 for other
reasons.
> Anyone know who this prospective replacement ws that Max found so
> unagreeable?
I was wondering that too.
Chad
I took that to be referring to the dropping of KERS at the time. That BMW
could not justify F1 spending without the hybrid angle to connect them to
their road cars.
Not that I believe that was the only, or even main, reason.
--
Chad
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> I took that to be referring to the dropping of KERS at the time. That BMW
> could not justify F1 spending without the hybrid angle to connect them to
> their road cars.
That's interesting now you mention it. Though as I recall the only
team arguing for KERS and threatening to not be party to the
gentleman's agreement to not use it was Williams.
But if your reading of the situation is right then part of BMW's
dissatisfaction was with FOTA.
Chad
At the moment they withdrew it looked highly likely KERS was gone for good.
Maybe that was only due to FOTA pronouncements, but at least around here it
seemed like most believed that was the case. It was in that light that I
thought that was the implication.
Think I recall an autosport or pitpass article speaking about BMW being the
biggest force pushing for it among the teams and their dis-satisfaction with
the dropping of KERS talk in the lead up to that announcement too.
--
Chad
Bob Dubery
> At the moment they withdrew it looked highly likely KERS was gone for good.
> Maybe that was only due to FOTA pronouncements, but at least around here it
> seemed like most believed that was the case. It was in that light that I
> thought that was the implication.
Yes. I overlooked that BMW announced that they were quitting mid-year.
At that time Force India and Williams were not part of FOTA and there
was not unanimity on the KERS issue.
Certainly I'd expect an automobile manufacturer to have an interest in
a technology that had promise as regards emissions reduction and
improving milage.
KERS is actually still permitted in the rules. It is a gentleman's
agreement by FOTA that is keeping it out.
peter
Not at all, just trying to get through to you that when you need it
badly enough, most everyone would do what they had to do to earn money,
including being paid by a sleazy old man to be beaten.
How about if Max offered you �10 million to slap you on the arse a
couple of times...I'd take it.
�100 to be whipped with a leather strap?...I think not.
Maxs whole "consenting adults" defence is BS, if it had been him and
some girlfriends engaging in S&M freely without anyone being paid, then
yes its entirely his own business...paying for sex slaves is a
completely different story.
Consent is only really consent when there is no incentive to agree.
Interestingly under UK law...."The general rule, therefore, is that
violence involving the deliberate and intentional infliction of bodily
harm is and remains unlawful notwithstanding that its purpose is the
sexual gratification of one or both participants. Notwithstanding their
sexual overtones, these cases are considered to be violent crimes and it
is not an excuse that one partner consents."
>
>> "This is slave 'Max' a dirty rubber slut!"
>You want to change that sig. Your objectivity is showing.
Direct quote from Maxs whipper....and no I won't be changing my sig
anytime soon.
--
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 6:35�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 3:32�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 14, 3:08�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Adding hundreds of unnecessary redundancies in a time of
> > > > > > global recession without any attempt to look at
> > > > > > alternatives was never plausible.
> >
> > > > > Well
> > > > > a) Not Mosley's doing
> >
> > > > Who else.
> > > BMW and Toyota are the companies shutting their race teams down.
> >
> > That was not caused by the proposed cap, nor is there any suggestion
> > that the cap would have prevented it.
> >
> > I think you have your knickers a little twisted.
> Well it is getting a bit hard to keep track. Now you seem to be saying
> that because there's no evidence that Mosley's proposed budget cut
> would have persuaded BMW and Toyota to stay in the sport that it must
> be his fault that they quit.
>
Not at all. What I referred to was the redundancies across the teams
and related industry that would have been caused by the cap. You linked
that to Toyota and BMW quitting. Not me.
> So not my knickers. Just poor old logic and natural justice.
On your part clearly. Hence my "knickers in a twist" comment.
You really must try harder.
When you untwist feel free to try again.
>
> Anyway, since you seem to be a born again socialist
Again very poor logic on your part. If I were you I would stop trying
to be clever until you catch up.
Have you been drinking?
>(well, at least
> there was a surprise at the end of the day's shenanigans) you can go
> and sing a chorus or too of The Red Flag and show your solidarity with
> the unemployed of the world and kid yourself that you did something,
> unlike some facist, kinky dictators that you could name.
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
Bigbird
Don't blame me for your inability to process.
Bigbird
> On Dec 15, 5:37�am, CatharticF1 <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Two (perhaps obvious) points to make here.
> >
> > 1. I don't doubt that for large companies like BMW, Toyota and
> > those that � stayed, not being able to spend limits the perceived
> > extent to which they can influence their competitiveness. If we
> > can't use our resources - what's the point?
> There isn't a strict budget cap in place. Toyota, who signed the
> Concord Agreement, would certainly have known that.
>
> And as Max says, there was no reason why BMW and/or Toyota couldn't
> say something like "we do not consider that competing in F1 under the
> new resource capping system aligns with our philosophy / aligns with
> our vision of motorsport."
>
> They simply said that it was a matter of cost.
>
> So the most plausible explanation is that it was a matter of cost.
Were they for or against the cost cap?
Perhaps what you call plausible is an expression of you processing
limits.
Bigbird
> On Dec 14, 10:00�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 3:14�pm, News <N...@Groups.Name> wrote:
> >
> > > > Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
> >
> > > Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own
> > > time with other consenting adults?
> >
> > Can you recall nothing else that Max has said or done that has had a
> > detrimental effect on the reputation of the sport?
>
> I think it's up to those who accuse him of bringing the sport into
> disrepute to provide the examples.
>
> So far the bloke I asked for details has been less than forthcoming.
You are refusing to answer my question. Why?
Either you recall nothing, in which case I'm sure many can enlighten
you or you do recall some things and are being disingenuous.
Bigbird
> On Dec 15, 11:40�am, "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 10:00 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Can you recall nothing else that Max has said or done that has
> > had a >> detrimental effect on the reputation of the sport?
> >
> > > I think it's up to those who accuse him of bringing the sport into
> > > disrepute to provide the examples.
> >
> > > So far the bloke I asked for details has been less than
> > > forthcoming.
> >
> > Maybe they thought the statement was clear, before you tried to
> > suggest sex issues are all that he had a problem with.
> > --
> > Chad
>
> G'day,
> Perhaps someone would like to list the examples or admit they do not
> exist.
>
> I am not trying to be antagonistic.
I think you are.
Producing a comprehensive list should be unnecessary. I would like to
establish whether some of the apologists are in denial or are realistic
about Max's short comings.
Bigbird
> On Dec 15, 7:31�am, "Chad" <cbs...@safemail.com> wrote:
> > Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> > I took that to be referring to the dropping of KERS at the time.
> > That BMW could not justify F1 spending without the hybrid angle to
> > connect them to their road cars.
> That's interesting now you mention it. Though as I recall the only
> team arguing for KERS and threatening to not be party to the
> gentleman's agreement to not use it was Williams.
>
Not all FOTA teams voted for banning it but they did all agree to abide
by the result of said vote.
Williams was not part of FOTA which is why they were not part of the
FOTA agreement.
Bigbird
So are you denying all knowledge of any disreputable act by Max during
his tenure?
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> Not at all, just trying to get through to you that when you need it
> badly enough, most everyone would do what they had to do to earn money,
> including being paid by a sleazy old man to be beaten.
> How about if Max offered you £10 million to slap you on the arse a
> couple of times...I'd take it.
Oh sure. As somebody once said "there's a little bit of the whore in
all of us".
> £100 to be whipped with a leather strap?...I think not.
> Maxs whole "consenting adults" defence is BS,
Actually I think that's my defense. I don't know if Max went down that
route or not. My own attitude is that what people do in private with
consenting adults is their business and usually not harmful to them
and even less so to society.
We need to not confuse what causes real harm with what just seems
wierd or even distasteful personally to us.
> if it had been him and
> some girlfriends engaging in S&M freely without anyone being paid, then
> yes its entirely his own business...paying for sex slaves is a
> completely different story.
You're using emotive terms like "sex slave". Did you do a little
research on this?0 "Women E", the one who dobbed Mosley in, doesn't
strike me as being any more of a slave to her chosen profession than I
am to mine.
> Consent is only really consent when there is no incentive to agree.
> Interestingly under UK law...."The general rule, therefore, is that
> violence involving the deliberate and intentional infliction of bodily
> harm is and remains unlawful notwithstanding that its purpose is the
> sexual gratification of one or both participants. Notwithstanding their
> sexual overtones, these cases are considered to be violent crimes and it
> is not an excuse that one partner consents."
>
>
>
> >> "This is slave 'Max' a dirty rubber slut!"
> >You want to change that sig. Your objectivity is showing.
>
> Direct quote from Maxs whipper....
As part of a role play, or her own personal opinion?
>and no I won't be changing my sig
> anytime soon.
No reason why you should. But it does suggest that when you talk about
Max you're letting your personal tastes overrule any attempt at
objectitivity.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 10:00 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > > On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, News <N...@Groups.Name> wrote:
>
> > > > > Bringing disrepute to the sport, for starters.
>
> > > > Is this for something other than what he choses to do in his own
> > > > time with other consenting adults?
>
> > > Can you recall nothing else that Max has said or done that has had a
> > > detrimental effect on the reputation of the sport?
>
> > I think it's up to those who accuse him of bringing the sport into
> > disrepute to provide the examples.
>
> > So far the bloke I asked for details has been less than forthcoming.
>
> You are refusing to answer my question. Why?
B) Since I'm not accusing Max of bringing motor sport into disrepute I
don't see why I should try and prove that he was guilty of that. The
guys who are taking that position should cite examples.
News
Asked and answered, numerous times.
peter
>Actually I think that's my defense. I don't know if Max went down that
>route or not.
He did.
>> if it had been him and
>> some girlfriends engaging in S&M freely without anyone being paid, then
>> yes its entirely his own business...paying for sex slaves is a
>> completely different story.
>You're using emotive terms like "sex slave". Did you do a little
>research on this?0 "Women E", the one who dobbed Mosley in, doesn't
>strike me as being any more of a slave to her chosen profession than I
>am to mine.
The woman who set up the day (and Max) also organised the young women
Max paid to take a whipping.
--
Bigbird
It's not about proving such. It's about whether you admit that you are
aware of such incidents or are in denial.
IOW it seems to me you are simply being argumentative and are just
backing yourself into a corner.
A little honesty at this point would be a good thing.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
So what? Some people enjoy that kind of stuff. Again this isn't
something that I ever feel like engaging in, but some folks do, in
ways that I cannot comprehend, derive pleasure from it. Max Mosley was
beaten so hard that a dressing had to be applied. In fact during the
role play he lied to get more strokes with the cane.
Strange? Well to me, yes it is, and I suspect it is to you too. But if
people want to do that then let them. That a woman was paid to do this
strikes me as immaterial, payment doesn't amount to coercion.
You obviously seem to regard this whole business with some distaste.
That alone doesn't make it wrong or bad.
Bob Dubery
> Interestingly under UK law...."The general rule, therefore, is that
> violence involving the deliberate and intentional infliction of bodily
> harm is and remains unlawful notwithstanding that its purpose is the
> sexual gratification of one or both participants. Notwithstanding their
> sexual overtones, these cases are considered to be violent crimes and it
> is not an excuse that one partner consents."
Well that can't possibly the whole law in this regard. If it were then
soccer players would be in the dock every week, boxing would be
illegal and there would be calls in parliament to have rugby banned or
at least toned down.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 11:21 am, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You are refusing to answer my question. Why?
> > A) I construed it as being rhetorical
> > B) Since I'm not accusing Max of bringing motor sport into disrepute I
> > don't see why I should try and prove that he was guilty of that. The
> > guys who are taking that position should cite examples.
>
> It's not about proving such. It's about whether you admit that you are
> aware of such incidents or are in denial.
And those are the only two possibilities are they?
Here's your problem. You reach a verdict first and then have to start
trying to retrofit the evidence to suit that verdict.
I won't even be presumptuous and arrogant and lecture you about
honesty and humility. There is always the possibility that you are
just a fool, or that you shout your mouth off without thinking and are
reluctant to admit an error in your position for fear of losing face.
peter
peter
I'm clearing making my point very poorly...what if someone needed a
kidney transplant but couldn't find a donor, would you be OK with going
to India and giving some poor wretch a hundred quid for one of theirs?
Or couldn't have kids so off to Africa and buy a baby off some desperate
mother? After all payment is made and both sides consent?
Whether the prostitute is a willing S&M participant or a young
vulnerable drug addict desperate for money for a fix is irrelevant...Max
has no way of knowing whether the women he paid to beat were happy to be
whipped or loathed every minute but desperately needed the money.
>You obviously seem to regard this whole business with some distaste.
>That alone doesn't make it wrong or bad.
Whereas you seem to be under the illusion that every prostitute goes to
work and a song on her lips and a spring to her step. How would you
fancy fucking 10 ugly old women every day as a job?
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >On Dec 15, 2:56 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >Strange? Well to me, yes it is, and I suspect it is to you too. But if
> >people want to do that then let them. That a woman was paid to do this
> >strikes me as immaterial, payment doesn't amount to coercion.
>
> I'm clearing making my point very poorly...what if someone needed a
> kidney transplant but couldn't find a donor, would you be OK with going
> to India and giving some poor wretch a hundred quid for one of theirs?
> Or couldn't have kids so off to Africa and buy a baby off some desperate
> mother? After all payment is made and both sides consent?
sort of exploitative trade that goes on in body parts, but hey! It is
my kidney.
> Whether the prostitute is a willing S&M participant or a young
> vulnerable drug addict desperate for money for a fix is irrelevant...Max
> has no way of knowing whether the women he paid to beat were happy to be
> whipped or loathed every minute but desperately needed the money.
Well that's presumption. We don't know either way (but that doesn't
stop you implying guilt). We do know that Mosley had contracted with
at least some of those women before. This is why he was surprised at
the source of the video tape. He'd been expecting to be tailed, he
didn't expect any of the women involved to videotape the session.
We do actually know that one of these women was in a dodgy financial
position. That was "Women E"/"Mistress Abi", the dominatrix. She and
her husband had, she said, got themselves into a spot of bother with
an extravagant wedding (this was AFTER she'd starting charging people
money for spanking them).
Do we then accuse NOTW of taking advantage of her vulnerability by
paying her money for betraying a confidence?
And anyway so what? Billions of people all over the world do things
for money when they'd rather be doing something else.
The key question would seem to be if she was co-erced or not. If you
want to argue that the need to make money amounts to a position of
being coerced then there are lot of coerced people on the planet.
> Whereas you seem to be under the illusion that every prostitute goes to
> work and a song on her lips and a spring to her step.
I've said that have I? Or are you just taking another shot at
smearing the messenger?
> How would you fancy fucking 10 ugly old women every day as a job?
I wouldn't. So?
I wouldn't fancy changing diapers on invalids in a hospital. I
wouldn't fancy lying under cars and changing oil either.
Bob Dubery
> The key words are "intentional infliction of bodily harm".
So where does that leave us with boxing? It is specifically exempted,
or is it the case that you've what posted is not an entire law or is
just part of a commentary on a law or a point of law? I really don't
see how it can be the WHOLE law.
News
> Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com> writes
>> On Dec 15, 2:56 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>> Strange? Well to me, yes it is, and I suspect it is to you too. But if
>> people want to do that then let them. That a woman was paid to do this
>> strikes me as immaterial, payment doesn't amount to coercion.
>
> I'm clearing making my point very poorly...what if someone needed a
> kidney transplant but couldn't find a donor, would you be OK with going
> to India and giving some poor wretch a hundred quid for one of theirs?
> Or couldn't have kids so off to Africa and buy a baby off some desperate
> mother? After all payment is made and both sides consent?
> Whether the prostitute is a willing S&M participant or a young
> vulnerable drug addict desperate for money for a fix is irrelevant...Max
> has no way of knowing whether the women he paid to beat were happy to be
> whipped or loathed every minute but desperately needed the money.
Same basis on which an "all volunteer army" is rationalized, despite
evidence that "joining up" is for many their only economic opportunity
Bob Dubery
> Whether the prostitute is a willing S&M participant or a young
> vulnerable drug addict desperate for money for a fix is irrelevant...Max
> has no way of knowing whether the women he paid to beat were happy to be
> whipped or loathed every minute but desperately needed the money.
When you go into a pub do you enquire about the age, legal status and
motivation of all the people working there? No. And why should you?
Obviously if you saw somebody clearly under age or clearly there under
duress you'd so something about it, as any conscientious person would,
but it's not your responsibility to be constantly questioning the
motivation of each and every person you enter into a transaction with.
I'd be very surprised if there's a legal requirement in the UK that
you do so.
If you have a different expectation of Mosley then why is that?
A) Because you don't approve of certain activities he choses to engage
in in private?
B) Because you don't approve of him full stop.
C) Because these are precautions that you take and you expect every
adult person to do the same?
This is the test: are we dealing with a general principle here or are
we insisting on a special case because it's Max Mosley or because S&M
is involved?
Ask yourself. Honestly. I don't need to know what the answer is. I've
made my position crystal clear. I don't personally care for those sort
of antics but I defend Mosley's right to engage in them as long as
it's with adults, as long as it's in private and as long as
participation is not forced.
Bob Dubery
> On Dec 15, 4:23 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > The key words are "intentional infliction of bodily harm".
>
> So where does that leave us with boxing? It is specifically exempted,
> or is it the case that you've what posted is not an entire law or is
> just part of a commentary on a law or a point of law?
Wikipedia. Now I don't hold the view that some do that because it's on
Wikipedia it's to be regarded as suspect, but you are not quoting the
statute book here. You have taken some sentences from a general
discussion about consent and violence.
peter
>On Dec 15, 4:21�pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Whether the prostitute is a willing S&M participant or a young
>> vulnerable drug addict desperate for money for a fix is irrelevant...Max
>> has no way of knowing whether the women he paid to beat were happy to be
>> whipped or loathed every minute but desperately needed the money.
>
>When you go into a pub do you enquire about the age, legal status and
>motivation of all the people working there? No. And why should you?
Apples and oranges.
peter
>Do we then accuse NOTW of taking advantage of her vulnerability by
>paying her money for betraying a confidence?
Well the NOTW definitely took advantage of her.
The original point was, as the president of the FIA, does paying
prostitutes to whip and be whipped bring the sport into disrepute and I
think it most certainly does....you don't and both our positions seem
intractable so we are basically wasting our time.
Chad
> This is the test: are we dealing with a general principle here or are
> we insisting on a special case because it's Max Mosley or because S&M
> is involved?
>
Before Max's scandal I would have thought it was almost a general principal
that a CEO (or similar) of a major corporation would stand down (or be
forced out) if caught out the same way Max was.
Max might be able to defend that as being unfair, but it doesnt change the
fact that many people in this world do not want to be represented by people
they know engage in that activity, and it's normal practice for people to go
if caught.
--
Chad
Bigbird
Abusive evasion Bob. Does this question really make you so
uncomfortable?
Why do you find the question so difficult to answer?
I think you have just given us the answer. That last paragraph is like
a confession.
I think you are very well aware that Max has acted in a manner that has
brought disrepute upon his position and the sport on more than one
occasion. If not you would simply have answered "no".
<shakes head>
That last para Bob, very telling, very telling.
build
> I think you are very well aware that Max has acted in a manner that has
> brought disrepute upon his position and the sport on more than one
> occasion. If not you would simply have answered "no".
> Bigbird
You keep making that assertion yet you will not back it up with facts.
Instead, you ask Bob to answer the question for you, why? Can't you
name more than one occasion.
build
Bigbird
Whoosh!
If Bob already knows why would I. If Bob says "no", sure.
Bigbird
How often has Max been blackmailed over his perversion?
Dan
>If you have a different expectation of Mosley then why is that?
>A) Because you don't approve of certain activities he choses to engage
>in in private?
>B) Because you don't approve of him full stop.
>C) Because these are precautions that you take and you expect every
>adult person to do the same?
>
>This is the test: are we dealing with a general principle here or are
>we insisting on a special case because it's Max Mosley or because S&M
>is involved?
Mosley is a 'special case' because of the impact the revelation has
on how he can do his job. For most people, the revelation of an S&M
romp is unlikely to affect how well they can do their job (aside
from perhaps some teasing in the workplace.) The same isn't true of
someone who holds a highly public position that involves dealing
with many different countries, races and religions.
Personally, I have no problem with what consenting adults get up to
behind closed doors.
However, not everyone in the world holds that opinion. A lot of
people disapprove of things like S&M for many and various reasons -
some find it just disturbing, some think it a sexual perversion,
some think it's morally reprehensible, some think it's a mortal sin
that will have all participants burning in hell for eternity. Some
people will find offence in the 'S&M' part, some in the alleged
'nazi theme', some in the 'use of prostitutes', some in the secrecy
and lies to his family about where he was and what he's doing.
Max's job REQUIRES that he deal with these people on a daily basis.
He is the President of the FIA. Part of his job is to represent the
FIA and motorsport *internationally* to all people and all cultures
throughout the world. When you are in a highly public position that
requires you to deal credibly with so many different cultures, you
have a responsibility to make sure that you don't do anything in
your private life that compromises your ability to do the job.
When a revelation about Max's personal life comes to light that
shows he indulges in practices that many people find abhorent, how
can he continue to represent the sport and deal with these people?
His credibility with them is shot. He was banned from attending the
Bahrain grand prix because the Crown Prince found his actions so
offensive.
In an ideal world, no one would care about Max's S&M interests - but
we don't live in an ideal world. Many people, especially religious
people, do care about it and have a strongly negative opinion of it.
That's why he should have stepped down - not because what he did was
"wrong" but because enough people felt it was wrong that the
revelation affected his ability to do his job and the negative
reputation attaching to him as a result also reflected badly on the
FIA in general.
Dan
Peter James
"Dan" <n...@spam.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:cndhi513sv9kisp0d...@4ax.com...
That was extemely well put, Dan, and I agree entirely.
--
Peter
build
<snip>
>
> Dan
G'day Dan,
Good post, well thought out.
The timing of said incident was unfortunate as the FIA needed strong
leadership to see things through. I'd guess that is why they retained
MM till that job was done.
beers,
build
build
> If Bob already knows why would I.
Credibility?
> --
> Bigbird
beers,
build
APLer
news:10c2c3da-5009-4e11...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 15, 6:17�am, APLer <AP...@floor.tilde> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a lot of rationalizing and attempts to paint over his
>> f*ckups to me. At the time the reason for the breakaway series was so
>> obviously about Max that any other explanation is pretty doubtful.
> That doesn't amount to Max plotting to force out the manufacturers -
> which was the suggestion.
>
Well it all depends on how you say it doesn't it? the manufacturers
leaving after being fed up with Max's administration or them leaving
because they can't deal with him. Not a real big difference.
> Max taking a position that the manufacturers didn't agree with is one
> thing (essentially he said that they were in F1 as long as it suited
> them and would leave the moment it did't, so they are fickle and not
> in F1 for F1's sake). But that he actively plotted against them is
> quite another.
>
That would require definite negative intent which could only be shown if
Max admitted it. Something I can't see ever happening, even if it were
true.
> Besides, Toyota signed the Concord Agreement and knew that Max Mosley
> would not be President of FIA in 2010, so they left F1 for other
> reasons.
>
Not getting the nack of running an organiation based on individuality.
Something that is agruably a block in Japanese culture.
Bigbird
> On Dec 16, 5:45�pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If Bob already knows why would I.
>
> Credibility?
>
Go on...
Chad
I don't think the FIA had much choice in the matter the way things were
(are) setup. If Max wasnt going to step down it was going to take a vote,
which Max didn't run until sure he would win.
--
Chad
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 3:25 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bob Dubery wrote:
> > > > On Dec 15, 11:21 am, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.usenetNOS...@Gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > You are refusing to answer my question. Why?
> > > > A) I construed it as being rhetorical
> > > > B) Since I'm not accusing Max of bringing motor sport into
> > > > disrepute I don't see why I should try and prove that he was
> > > > guilty of that. The guys who are taking that position should cite
> > > > examples.
>
> > > It's not about proving such. It's about whether you admit that you
> > > are aware of such incidents or are in denial.
> > And those are the only two possibilities are they?
>
> > Here's your problem. You reach a verdict first and then have to start
> > trying to retrofit the evidence to suit that verdict.
>
> > I won't even be presumptuous and arrogant and lecture you about
> > honesty and humility. There is always the possibility that you are
> > just a fool, or that you shout your mouth off without thinking and are
> > reluctant to admit an error in your position for fear of losing face.
>
> Abusive evasion Bob. Does this question really make you so
> uncomfortable?
or have tried to.
>
> Why do you find the question so difficult to answer?
I don't. But see above. Some questions are not actually honest
enquiries for information.
>
> I think you have just given us the answer. That last paragraph is like
> a confession.
Oh I freely confess that I have no time for loaded questions.
Bob Dubery
Has he stipulated one? I must say that I didn't notice.