Sign in / up

back to article Cheque-red flag for Max Mosley

So the dust has settled, Max Mosley has won his case, and UK privacy law advances a further notch. Does this make any difference at all to the El Reg readers – apart from those few who get their jollies from dressing up in strange uniforms and whipping one another at the weekend? The answer, as with most things legal, was …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Simon C

    Here is the problem I am having about all of this

    Max Mosely was involved in various sexual acts and practices referred to as S&M, with consenting adults, in private accomodation.

    How on earth did this end up as front page news?

    Had there been a Nazi twist to his party, how would that have changed things?

    He was supposedly have re-enacted concentration camps/nazi goings on.

    Re-Enacted - As in to ACT - As in to pretend.

    Does that mean every film maker has to make sure we dont PRETEND to do anything offensive or derogatory for fear of recrimination.

    Listen if Max, Gordon, George or anyone else in the public eye, wish to get their bits whipped for kicks whilst sticking a couple of heil hitlers in for good measure AMONGST consenting adults AND in the privacy of their own homes, then so be it....I couldnt give a rats ass.

    It causes more damage for it to be out in the open.

    Fleet street should put their bloody Air fix models down and grow up.

    0 0
  2. James Pickett
    Thumb Up

    Justice

    While I wish Max Moseley would either leave his job or get off the MacLaren race team's back, I can't help but sympathise over this botched 'sting' by Murdoch's lackeys (who apparently didn't even pay the girl what they had promised).

    Perhaps the £60k could come out of NoTW execs' bonuses...

    0 0
  3. Francis Fish
    Stop

    Proof please

    "Already, however, we have some evidence of people being asked in job interviews about what type of pornography they look at."

    URL? News article? Very dodgy ground - please substantiate.

    1 0
  4. Robajob

    There was no good outcome for this case

    It was like Jonathan Aitken vs Mohammed Fayed - they should both have lost.

    0 0
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    £60k?

    £60k is nothing to the NOTW surely? I hope they have to pay both fees too. The UK's infantile and hypocritical attitude to sex is pathetic. For some of us a quick missionary-position fuck every second Saturday isn't enough - I'm tempted to list sex as a hobby nowadays.

    Mine's the black custom tailored steel boned leather corset with the attached crop and kneeling slave, thanks.

    0 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What You Fail To Realise

    Is that the News Of The World has been behaving like this for years, ruining lives and careers and getting away with it scot free. £60,000 is no deterrent for any organisation bankrolled by Rupert Murdoch.

    Until the editors of such rags are banged up inside for a few months tabloids will continue to scour and search for and occasionally fabricate material designed purely to humiliate other people. That is what they live to do.

    So Max Mosley gets his kicks from being whipped and caned? Does it affect his performance in his job? I know some techies who are a bit kinky and they're damn good at their profession. I know some managers who recoil in horror at any kind of suggestive joke who are completely useless. What does it prove? Nothing.

    Let's see how you'd like it if the NOTW decided to expose one of your secrets.

    0 0
  7. Tim

    Any independent observer could see what this judge daren't

    It was clearly obvious what was happening. Still i think the damage has been done. Nobody has wanted to have anything to do with moseley since this happened. Personally i find the man a slimeball with zero morals.

    0 0
  8. Neil Charles

    What does £60k buy you these days?

    1. Huge global exposure

    2. The guarantee that any celeb who might think about suing in future knows the story will go from a weekend in the gutter press to being discussed, in detail, in all the quality dailies too.

    Bargain.

    The NOTW closing statement sounded like one of their front pages. IT'S A SCANDAL! MOSELY AND THE HOOKERS! WHO CARES IF WE WIN!

    0 0
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Porn interviews?

    "Already, however, we have some evidence of people being asked in job interviews about what type of pornography they look at."

    WTF? Do share...

    0 0
  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So he's a sick old adulturous perv

    ......... but that's OK?

    I thought the NOTW more or less lost the moment their main witness had some sort of nervous breakdown. I also read elsewhere that she had various visits from Max's friends to discuss her errr testimony.

    I wonder if he's considered becoming an MP.

    0 0
  11. Louis Cowan
    Thumb Up

    "Cheque-red"

    Who(m?)ever wrote that headline should be dragged out at dawn and shot.

    0 0
  12. adnim

    Excellent result

    Congratulations on your victory Max.

    Lets hope we see less invasions into the private lives of public figures with this ruling. Not because I particularly care about the privacy of celebrities, I am just sick to death of hearing about the lives of what are mostly vacuous non-entities in the media.

    "reasonable expectation of privacy". I feel the judge should have said "absolute expectation of privacy".

    "the Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property. I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on 28 March 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes...."

    So what if it was? He is still entitled to privacy. Consenting adults in a fantasy role play situation should not have to justify their behaviour. Patient and nurse, teacher and pupil or Nazi and prisoner. I don't see a problem.

    "...Nor was it in fact. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust."

    Even if they did, again this a private fantasy role play situation between consenting adults, so what? To me is it sad and somewhat sick to mock victims of any kind of horror, but in private, who's business is it?

    S&M is something I do not participate in, I'm sure I never will. Nor do I engage in role play with my partner... boring ain't I? But I am liberal enough not to condemn others and presume that such behaviour is a blot on their character.

    If S&M and or role play floats your boat then float away my friends, just be on the look out for hidden cameras fist I mean first ;-)

    Seeing as the NOTW normally prints a shite feast for the feeble minded I wonder how it would have reported the story if he was into scat?

    0 0
  13. Amanda Appleton
    Stop

    Flabbergasted

    Good coverage and so on. One point, though, caught my eye:

    "Already, however, we have some evidence of people being asked in job interviews about what type of pornography they look at."

    I could understand this, maybe, if they were going for a job in Anne Summers or similar, or maybe applying to be a sperm donor, but otherwise?

    0 0
  14. Mike Crawshaw
    Stop

    The part I'm concerned with...

    "Already, however, we have some evidence of people being asked in job interviews about what type of pornography they look at."

    ** WTF????? **

    Sorry, but if I was asked that question in an interview for a dev job, that's the point where I would thank them for their time and inform them that I find such questions are irrelevant, intrusive and offensive, and that I have no wish to work for a company that feels it has a right to invade the privacy of its workers to that degree.

    If I want to spank the monkey to footage of Girls Aloud (with the volume off, I'm not THAT much of a deviant!) or to Lesbian vs lesbian action, then that's MY business, not that of a (potential) employer.

    (Unless I get caught doing so at my desk again, of course...)

    0 0
  15. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Up

    This is excellent news...

    ... It finally makes clear to the Gutter Press that, as the PCC quote says, “what interests the public is not necessarily the same as the public interest”.

    The News of the Screws has cynically and hypocritically tried to set itself up as the Moral Guardian of the UK and this has now backfired on them in a spectacular manner.

    In a country where we have repeatedly seen laws passed based on the Government's knee-jerk reaction to whatever is in the newspapers that day, this is one back for the freedom of the individual to engage in consensual practices in private without anyone passing judgement or saying "we don't like this, so you shouldn't do it".

    Oh and if Mr Mosely wants to spend some of his winnings buying some Affordable Leather Products, I'm sure he can find a company willing to supply him ;-)

    0 0
  16. Tonto Popaduopolos

    Good on him!

    Mr Mosley strkes a blow for the little guy!

    0 0
  17. JimC

    If you read the Full report...

    The thing that really stinks was the NOTW attempts to blackmail, yes BLACKMAIL, the other women in the "party" to co-operate with them. I really hope that the Met are onto that, because the people responsible should be in gaol.

    0 0
  18. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Attribution Pls

    Hi,

    Please can we have attributions for the claims that interviewers are interested in a persons pornography tastes and for the activist making sour comments about rugby vs sexual assault pls.

    0 0
  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well done to the judge...

    For seeing through the bullsh** that the News Of The World spun. They saw a salacious story and added bits to it to really stir the pot. Mosley's reputation is forever tarnished for something that was done between consenting adults, even if it's considered depraved and not socially acceptable by the brickies and the Sun readers. That's probably why it was done in strict privacy, which clearly was breached by the one girl who saw an opportunity to make money off the old bugger.

    On that point I am glad Mosley won. Gutter rags will have to realise that not everything is in the public interest. Their gutter-mongering (by claiming it has a Nazi theme) definitely wasn't.

    0 0
  20. Tonto Popaduopolos

    @ Mike Crawshaw

    Don't get caught at your desk!

    At my place of work we are provided with a poultry throttling and primate correctional facility. Which is nice!

    0 0
  21. JohnG

    Damages too low

    Whatever his background, personality and moral traits, Moseley has a right to privacy like everyone else. Whenever the papers set out to destroy someone in this way, the damages should be equivalent to the paper's turnover for every day they printed stories about their victim(s). Their shareholders would soon adjust the editorial direction - or the paper concerned would soon cease to exist.

    0 0
  22. amanfromMars Silver badge
    Alien

    PerlyGatesPython on AIProwl Full Monty.

    "we have some evidence of people being asked in job interviews about what type of pornography they look at." ....with all the Best Big City Firms already in the Know is an Interesting AIResearch and dDevelopment Faculty Facilitating Fabrications and Virtual Scenarios .... Generating AltAIVista Stars and Starlets.

    And Man, is that a Hook you can Succumb to with Honour Rewarded Meekly and Gratefully and Greatly for Great Deeds Done, and Lodes More 42 Come.

    Is that AI Virtually Betting against ITself to Raise Interest for ITs Novel Investment Strategies from Secured and Guaranteed Funds Deposited by Wealthy Patrons/Moral Hazard Mentors.Capitalist BedRock.

    And the only Open Question there was the last ones.

    OMIGOD ..... Intelligence isn't Joined Up. Evidence the Chaos.

    SOLution .... Join Up Intelligence and Pass the Sun Lotion. :-) And many a True Word is Oft Spoke in Jest and Joust with the Past but Ever the Future is Built Beta Upon the Truths, Uncovered and UnXXXXPurgated.

    Venus's Virtual Playground ACcording/Recording to Mars is AI GODs Honest Truth too. With Restless Pandora AIProwling too.....for MaXXXXiMuMBAI Thrust and Escape Velocity.

    Roger that El Registered Post, India?

    And Hello, Sapphire Ladies, Always Most Welcome.

    If I had any Meds I could blame them so I suppose IT is just MeThinking Responsible for All of this Tale. So Be IT Let IT Be Free would be at least One Refrain.

    But Such is AI MaXXXXdD Out for ITs Private Pleasures. And Amen to That Trial Tribulation and Surreal Surrender.

    0 0
  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well...

    whilst I think his sexual exploits are his own business, I find it a bit rich that he blames the NOTW for his wife being "absolutely devastated".

    I think she would have been "absolutely devastated" regardless of where she found out from; the fact that he was playing away from home with prostitutes is entirely his own fault.

    Somehow, I can't see his wife saying "it's okay because you won your court case, love".

    0 0
  24. Steve Carr
    Alert

    Costs?

    While the payment to Mr Mosley is 60K, the paper is also now liable for costs, on both sides. The numbers I saw said 450K for Mosley's brief, and 400K for the papers own. So not a mere slap on the hand, we're looking at the better part of a million.

    Of course, all publicity is good, to the gutter press.

    0 0
  25. Mr Ropey
    Thumb Up

    About time Fleet Street was reined in.

    Congratulations to Mr Justice Eady for his excellent, beautifully worded and well thoughout judgement in this case. Yet again the News of the Scews has been found wanting. What I really found unbelievable was the audacity of Colin Myler to try and take the moral high ground, and his rebuttal was almost in contempt off court!

    He banged on about the (nonexistant) nazi theme, obviously he and his staff have seen something that no-one else could. Isn't it about time we had similar press legislation akin to that in france, when tripe like this never makes the headlines and the the newspapers are expected to publish news worthy stories, not titilation??

    0 0
  26. James Pickett
    Happy

    Next

    What would make my day complete would be the loss of a NoTW laptop with the particulars of all their staff, expense claims, and what they really think of their proprietor...

    0 0
  27. Zmodem
    Pirate

    f1

    motorheads are motorheads, and if the sun/notw didnt spend years calling the nation a bunch of chavs, they'd be the first to have a page 3 photoshoot at a

    Legal car cruise, and if you 60yrs old who wouldnt, icecubes and the ritz hotel

    0 0
  28. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Job Interview

    "Already, however, we have some evidence of people being asked in job interviews about what type of pornography they look at."

    Imagine at the interview...

    "Well Mr Coward, what sort of porn do you like to look at?

    "Does that mean it's company policy that I can look at porn while at work?"

    0 0
  29. lord_farquaad
    Paris Hilton

    grounds

    Please, could someone clarify (or as the article is not 100% clear on that, shall I look for information somewhere else ?)

    Was the judgement based on the privacy invasion globally, or only on the "wrong" (according to the judge) claim that there was a Nazy connotation in the sexual activity ?

    0 0
  30. Dr Patrick J R Harkin

    £60,000 compensation?

    That's just a slap on the wrist...

    0 0
  31. Mr Larrington
    Thumb Up

    Yay!

    Mosley is a bit of a twonk, but anyone who stitches up the News Of The Screws is alright by me.

    0 0
  32. Ian
    Paris Hilton

    Er..what?

    Is that comment from namfromMars total gibberish or am I being thick?. I have a slight suspicion its something techy and I've just demonstrated my ignorance...

    Paris. Obvious really in the context

    0 0
  33. Mike Crawshaw
    Joke

    @ Ian "Er..what?"

    You evidently haven't been coming here long.

    There are a number of ways to treat posts from The Great AMFM:

    * skip them because they make it all hurt too much.

    * read them and say "WTF?"

    * take a protective large swig of whiskey first

    * do so in the privacy of your own home with four ladies dressed in luftwaffe jackets and beating you with canes where it's no-one else's business...

    0 0
  34. Martin
    Stop

    Porn interviews.....?

    "Already, however, we have some evidence of people being asked in job interviews about what type of pornography they look at....."

    Adding my tuppenceworth to the list of people who want a bit more evidence for this statement than just your unsupported word.

    Frankly, I simply don't believe it. And it has the effect of making my look at the whole article rather more askance.

    0 0
  35. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Well done that judge

    I highly recommend a read of the full judgment.

    Not only does the clarity and perception restore one's faith in the legal profession, but parts of it are actually quite funny, too.

    0 0
  36. Alexis Vallance

    Pocket money

    The NOTW would gladly have sacrificed £500,000 for all the free publicity they have got out of this.

    The court case won't make an iota of difference to them or any other papers.

    Mosley hasn't been truly victorious in any of this. He's so arrogant, he'd rather go through the igmony of confidence votes from his cronies in order to keep his job, which now involves been banned from a lot of countries and spending the weekend hiding in a portakbin at circuits where he is allowed.

    0 0
  37. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Sorry.....

    but I was security vetted by the MoD, as well as various companies who contracted to the MoD and not once was I asked "What sort of porn do I like". Was this article written by an ex NotW reporter?

    0 0
  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Possessing sexually explicit images?

    Quote:

    Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This states that individuals may be barred from working with children or vulnerable groups if they possess “sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings”.

    So does that include anyone who has a copy of News of the World with the Mosley article in then?

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.