FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[McLaren Fan]

...the FIA is made up of delegations of idiots so he might survive

I'm getting that feeling as well, to be really honest.

As far as I'm concerned there's only one suitable verdict from the FIA in a fortnight or so's time: Mosley kicked out. If not, there should be a revolt en masse in the sport, from the teams, sponsors, regional authorities, tracks owners, marshals, the lot!

I hope that doesn't lead to another situation like Indianapolis 2005.

If there was a serious backlash from everybody (well, almost everybody, for Ferrari will side with the FIA no matter what), anything the FIA are in charge of could be brought to a halt. Formula One, the WRC, Le Mans etc. would be paralysed, and Mosley would be on his own. If the FIA knew things could get that serious, even they would hound out Mosley. There has to be a united front, however. If the opposition is divided, Mosley will cling to power and reap his revenge with impunity on whoever he feels opposed him. With the rumours flying around of McLaren's involvement in setting him up, I fear that could be the pretext he needs to initiate another hate campaign against the team.

[talksbollocks]

Erm - of course he was set up FFS! She turned up with a video camera and filmed him! The question is who by. And it matters because if, for eaxmple, he was set up by Maclaren in revenge, should they be allowed to succeed in getting rid of him? Not quite so clear cut then, is it. For all the man is a nasty piece of work, I doubt you get to his position without being a nasty piece of work. Would YOU expect your boss to be able to sack you because you got caught having kinky umpalumpa with a prossie by, say, a bloke who wanted your job, and he told your boss? I doubt it, you'd argue it was a private matter , and in as much as it caused embarrassment it wasn't your fault because you were deliberately set up for that purpose.

That said, what is the evidence? If somebody stuffs you, you look for who hates you most. In this case, you start with Ron Dennis and co, but not far behind is probably a few score other people. Personnally I doubt if Dennis had anything to do with it, but a lot of other people got hurt by the fines on the team, who knows anything about them? Fact is, somebody stuffed him and we will probably never know who.

So should he go? Well, what he did wasn't taking bribes, or fixing races, or work related in any way. But unless he can prove pretty damn quick he was set up by somebody in the sport to get rid of him, yes he should because he's brought the sport into disrepute. But if he can prove that, and so can argue in fact somebody else brought the sport into disrepute by exposing him to try and get rid of him, then where's the moral high-ground?

[bud]

moral high ground??? i wonder......maybe ask the guy youre defending

[McLaren Fan]

Erm - of course he was set up FFS! She turned up with a video camera and filmed him! The question is who by. And it matters because if, for eaxmple, he was set up by Maclaren in revenge, should they be allowed to succeed in getting rid of him? Not quite so clear cut then, is it. For all the man is a nasty piece of work, I doubt you get to his position without being a nasty piece of work. Would YOU expect your boss to be able to sack you because you got caught having kinky umpalumpa with a prossie by, say, a bloke who wanted your job, and he told your boss? I doubt it, you'd argue it was a private matter , and in as much as it caused embarrassment it wasn't your fault because you were deliberately set up for that purpose.

That said, what is the evidence? If somebody stuffs you, you look for who hates you most. In this case, you start with Ron Dennis and co, but not far behind is probably a few score other people. Personnally I doubt if Dennis had anything to do with it, but a lot of other people got hurt by the fines on the team, who knows anything about them? Fact is, somebody stuffed him and we will probably never know who.

So should he go? Well, what he did wasn't taking bribes, or fixing races, or work related in any way. But unless he can prove pretty damn quick he was set up by somebody in the sport to get rid of him, yes he should because he's brought the sport into disrepute. But if he can prove that, and so can argue in fact somebody else brought the sport into disrepute by exposing him to try and get rid of him, then where's the moral high-ground?

Your username certainly doesn't bely the facts, that's for sure.

It doesn't matter if Mosley was set up, or by whom, should he have been so. The fact is he voluntarily had an orgy with the prostitutes and it known to have done so several times a year. Mosley cannot continue. He is the head of a global body, so everybody knows what he has done, nobody wants to be near him, and what he has to say can't be taken seriously because of his own decadence. Mosley can have nobody to blame but himself for his predicament.

[al4x]

Erm - of course he was set up FFS! She turned up with a video camera and filmed him! The question is who by. And it matters because if, for eaxmple, he was set up by Maclaren in revenge, should they be allowed to succeed in getting rid of him? Not quite so clear cut then, is it. For all the man is a nasty piece of work, I doubt you get to his position without being a nasty piece of work. Would YOU expect your boss to be able to sack you because you got caught having kinky umpalumpa with a prossie by, say, a bloke who wanted your job, and he told your boss? I doubt it, you'd argue it was a private matter , and in as much as it caused embarrassment it wasn't your fault because you were deliberately set up for that purpose.

That said, what is the evidence? If somebody stuffs you, you look for who hates you most. In this case, you start with Ron Dennis and co, but not far behind is probably a few score other people. Personnally I doubt if Dennis had anything to do with it, but a lot of other people got hurt by the fines on the team, who knows anything about them? Fact is, somebody stuffed him and we will probably never know who.

So should he go? Well, what he did wasn't taking bribes, or fixing races, or work related in any way. But unless he can prove pretty damn quick he was set up by somebody in the sport to get rid of him, yes he should because he's brought the sport into disrepute. But if he can prove that, and so can argue in fact somebody else brought the sport into disrepute by exposing him to try and get rid of him, then where's the moral high-ground?

personally i dont have a problem with what he did, but its helping undermine his position at the top,

so if it gts rid of him im ok with it, but id be happier if it was for his f1 related behaviour rather than this shenanigans

what he should have done was walked away when he saw the camera, silly boy, i mean i dont know about yous but if i came cross thhat id be suspicious, not 'ok, lets do this thing'

[McLaren Fan]

Erm - of course he was set up FFS! She turned up with a video camera and filmed him! The question is who by. And it matters because if, for eaxmple, he was set up by Maclaren in revenge, should they be allowed to succeed in getting rid of him? Not quite so clear cut then, is it. For all the man is a nasty piece of work, I doubt you get to his position without being a nasty piece of work. Would YOU expect your boss to be able to sack you because you got caught having kinky umpalumpa with a prossie by, say, a bloke who wanted your job, and he told your boss? I doubt it, you'd argue it was a private matter , and in as much as it caused embarrassment it wasn't your fault because you were deliberately set up for that purpose.

That said, what is the evidence? If somebody stuffs you, you look for who hates you most. In this case, you start with Ron Dennis and co, but not far behind is probably a few score other people. Personnally I doubt if Dennis had anything to do with it, but a lot of other people got hurt by the fines on the team, who knows anything about them? Fact is, somebody stuffed him and we will probably never know who.

So should he go? Well, what he did wasn't taking bribes, or fixing races, or work related in any way. But unless he can prove pretty damn quick he was set up by somebody in the sport to get rid of him, yes he should because he's brought the sport into disrepute. But if he can prove that, and so can argue in fact somebody else brought the sport into disrepute by exposing him to try and get rid of him, then where's the moral high-ground?

personally i dont have a problem with what he did, but its helping undermine his position at the top,

so if it gts rid of him im ok with it, but id be happier if it was for his f1 related behaviour rather than this shenanigans

what he should have done was walked away when he saw the camera, silly boy

I do have a problem with what he did, for it hinders his ability to make any judgement which involves any level of moral standard. Further, the Nazi theme to it is abhorrent. Anybody who has sympathies with that regime, should be purged from the planet, just as they wiped out Jews, and people with other "faults" such as colour blindness and asthma to being physically disabled.

[al4x]

there have been alot of terrible things (by our standards) done in the past, morals etc are a human creation anyway, breakable and flexible, to me there is no absolute right and wrong, its different for everyone, to me and most people it is terrible and wrong but to him?

[McLaren Fan]

there have been alot of terrible things (by our standards) done in the past, morals etc are a human creation anyway, breakable and flexible, to me there is no absolute right and wrong, its different for everyone, to me and most people it is terrible and wrong but to him?

We're not living in the middle ages any longer.

[8-ball]

everyone has a different set of morals and probably Moseley feels he did nothing wrong. The problem is that all the sponsor's, team owners (except the perverted Ferrari ) and track owners do think he did something wrong. So he has to go because he can't his job properly and cannot represent the sport because the majority think he is a dirty old man

[darwin dali]

there have been alot of terrible things (by our standards) done in the past, morals etc are a human creation anyway, breakable and flexible, to me there is no absolute right and wrong, its different for everyone, to me and most people it is terrible and wrong but to him?

We're not living in the middle ages any longer.

Tell that the people at Abu Ghraib.

[bud]

there have been alot of terrible things (by our standards) done in the past, morals etc are a human creation anyway, breakable and flexible, to me there is no absolute right and wrong, its different for everyone, to me and most people it is terrible and wrong but to him?

We're not living in the middle ages any longer.

Tell that the people at Abu Ghraib.

they aint apart of the evil western empire we have high morals now days in this politically correct western world which Max is exempt from it seems
If he were based in the USA he would have stepped down the moment it made the news.... how many politicians have we seen step down over prostitutes let alone not even a hint of Nazism

[McLaren Fan]

there have been alot of terrible things (by our standards) done in the past, morals etc are a human creation anyway, breakable and flexible, to me there is no absolute right and wrong, its different for everyone, to me and most people it is terrible and wrong but to him?

We're not living in the middle ages any longer.

Tell that the people at Abu Ghraib.

That spurious sound bite is a completely separate issue from what I was talking about it. What went on at Abu Ghraib was wrong and any sane-minded person would condemn it. Just because shocking events happened there does not mean that Mosley's Nazism is correct. People have different moral values, and that's fine, there is a philosophical debate to be had on the matter, but a line has to be drawn somewhere when it comes to the horrific activities that the Nazis did; it's not acceptable to just say Mosley has different morals. The good thing is that most detest Nazism, and aren't too keen on his affairs either, and don't want to be near the slime ball and don't want to listen to his lies. So, he's got to go.

[darwin dali]

there have been alot of terrible things (by our standards) done in the past, morals etc are a human creation anyway, breakable and flexible, to me there is no absolute right and wrong, its different for everyone, to me and most people it is terrible and wrong but to him?

We're not living in the middle ages any longer.

Tell that the people at Abu Ghraib.

That spurious sound bite is a completely separate issue from what I was talking about it. What went on at Abu Ghraib was wrong and any sane-minded person would condemn it. Just because shocking events happened there does not mean that Mosley's Nazism is correct. People have different moral values, and that's fine, there is a philosophical debate to be had on the matter, but a line has to be drawn somewhere when it comes to the horrific activities that the Nazis did; it's not acceptable to just say Mosley has different morals. The good thing is that most detest Nazism, and aren't too keen on his affairs either, and don't want to be near the slime ball and don't want to listen to his lies. So, he's got to go.

You're preaching to the converted here about Nazism, etc. I was just questioning your generalization on us not living in the middle ages any longer. There is plenty going on that would qualify as what you presumably include in such a category. Even Nazism isn't eradicated (see Neo-nazism and related). And what about North Korea's Juche? With thousands of people being shot while also starving, the differences between that Stalinist dictatorship and Hitler's regime are rather subtle. Saudi-Arabia seems to be permanently stuck in the middle ages, don't you think? Virtually no rights for women, capital or severe punishments for rather minor offenses (differences for men and women here again), a very fascistoid attitude against non-muslims combined with an almost absolute monarchistic regime style. Afghanistan? Women in burkas aka beekeeper suits, Taliban maroding and killing at their pleasure - very middle age. Or the Vatican, a bit closer to (your) home: no rights for women really within the club, even their reproductive freedom severely curbed, absolute monarchy incl. non-fallibility presumption by the pope, rife with superstitious beliefs and reactionary non-sensical edicts, c'mon give it up - it's very middle age.

[McLaren Fan]

You're preaching to the converted here about Nazism, etc. I was just questioning your generalization on us not living in the middle ages any longer. There is plenty going on that would qualify as what you presumably include in such a category. Even Nazism isn't eradicated (see Neo-nazism and related). And what about North Korea's Juche? With thousands of people being shot while also starving, the differences between that Stalinist dictatorship and Hitler's regime are rather subtle. Saudi-Arabia seems to be permanently stuck in the middle ages, don't you think? Virtually no rights for women, capital or severe punishments for rather minor offenses (differences for men and women here again), a very fascistoid attitude against non-muslims combined with an almost absolute monarchistic regime style. Afghanistan? Women in burkas aka beekeeper suits, Taliban maroding and killing at their pleasure - very middle age. Or the Vatican, a bit closer to (your) home: no rights for women really within the club, even their reproductive freedom severely curbed, absolute monarchy incl. non-fallibility presumption by the pope, rife with superstitious beliefs and reactionary non-sensical edicts, c'mon give it up - it's very middle age.

My comment about the Middle Ages was a generalisation made on an internet forum; I had no idea an academic debate was going to ensue over it, otherwise I would have qualified my statement or said something different altogether.

As I said, just because various things are happening around the world does not mean they are right. I'm no idealist or dreamer and know about how difficult it is to change some of the above, but having somebody like Mosley who subscribes to such values at the head of a global organisation that has to tolerate the views of many different people is simply ludicrous.

Finally, can I just ask how the Vatican is closer to my home?

[bud]

Finally, can I just ask how the Vatican is closer to my home?

geographically i think DD meant