Britain's secular religion

Hysteria

I would assert he is not a "public figure".

For the purpose of any "public interest" in a person's sexual proclivities, surely this should be limited to those who would be in a position to pass law in this area, or to pass judgement.

Mosley is neither an MP, nor a member of the clergy or a member of the bench (so fas as I know) - so while the prurient public may be interested, I fail to see why it is "in the public interest".

Dixon

The marvellous thing about Melanie is its possible to totally agree with her on some things and totally disagree on others. Such as this.

I am absolutely bereft to explain how Mels critical faculties directed at the press regarding say, Obama, are then oddly suspended to allow the Red Top Rags the now long discredited conceit that what they do is in the public interest.

Lets cut out the bsh1t! They EXIST to sell copies. IF they ever had the opportunity to expose facts genuinely in the public interest about, say, a minister, no privacy law in the land would stand in their way as no judge would enforce such a law if real issues were at stake.

Outside such a hypothetical eventuality,- never actually witnessed as far as I know - nothing that anybody does, being legal between consenting adults, should be of any concern to anyone.

I have a particular angle on the Mosley case. I have a friend who is a respectable mother of two who loves to dress up in what is very certainly NAZI regalia and inflict very genuine pain on the man in her life. This is what brought them together. They live in dread of being “exposed”. What they do is of no concern to anybody. Melanie, you are saying that your employers at the tabloids have a right to destroy my friends’ lives in the interests of selling a few more copies.

Incidentally, the variety of professional women Mosley hired would never have sex with a client. They were not prostitutes.

Kevyn Bodman

Melanie,
You've really got this one wrong.
Mosley engaged in a legal,freely-entered into contract that is no business of yours,mine or anybody else.
There is no public interest (meaning what is relevant to the health or welfare of the nation) in this.
The story was run for commercial reasons, to boost sales because of the desire of the public to read sex stories.In that sense there is an interest ,but let's keep the two meanings clearly distinct.

Speaking personally, I find Mosley's activities distasteful and he would not be welcome in my house. However, that has no bearing on whether or not his sexual activity should be exposed.
It shouldn't.
There is a wide range of human sexual behaviour, and when it is consensual there is no good reason to either broadcast or condemn it.
Nor,indeed to approve of it; it's none of our business.

Ronnie

This is all very 'Brian Rix' don't you think?

Does anyone really believe that the News of the World (I mean spare me!) reported this in the interests of public morality? The News of the World, as everyone knows, is a bastion of good old British immorality and to represent their 'position' on this as Melenie has is absoulutely ridiculous.

Max Mosely obviously has issues but I find myself rather wishing that I hadn't been 'exposed' to them in this way.

This is not a worthy follow-up to your work on the Brand/Ross fiasco.

David

I'd also like to know why a secular religion is worse than a theocratic one.

Frank P

And speaking of toadying, the fact that the fat toad depicted above oiled his way, courtesy of his flat-mate T Blair, to the highest governmental law office in the land (having usurped another erstwhile crony of the Blair dynasty, Rudolph 'Wallpaper' Irvine), is a clear indicator that our country is in its final stages of disintegration.

Having watched Dacre’s speech in its entirety, I enjoyed it. His rather hesitant delivery was quite endearing after the glib torrent of oily verbiage we have just had inflicted on us by The Obamessiah for the past few months. Made me long for the drunken era of Grub Street - which he spoke of, when you knew where you stood with the hacks. He seems keen on ethics, which is no doubt why he hired you Melanie. He probably hired Littlejohn because he's keen on Essex. But it does indicate his eclectic mix and why that is important to maintain the popular press to counteract the elitism and ingrained leftist bias of the broadsheets. Self-serving hypocrites will of course, accuse him of self-serving hypocrisy. I thought his broadside on the Beeb was a welcome development from the AN, which has been a little cosy with them in the past, apart from your own good self, Melanie (albeit on your blog). Let's hope they feel the draught in W12 and W1, it’s long overdue. He gave the Government a bit of a pasting, too, but seemed to give MacBraun and the Straw man a pass. A bit of inconsistency there, as they are two of the main architects of the Gramsci plan that he implicitly denounced in his speech, but he obviously hopes to maintain a little influence until he switches sides just before the next election (we hope)..

As for the judiciary – it’s now beyond execration; it’s the main cause of the problem this nation now confronts. Get your act together David Cameron and start the Long March back, rather than joining it, which I fear you might if some of your manifesto is not just a ruse.
Coming and couldn't wait for you to return.
And speaking of toadying, the fact that the fat toad depicted above oiled his way, courtesy of his flat-mate T Blair, to the highest governmental law office in the land (having usurped another erstwhile crony of the Blair dynasty, Rudolph 'Wallpaper' Irvine), is a clear indicator that our country is in its final stages of disintegration.

As for Dacre's speech, having watched it in its entirety I enjoyed it. His rather hesitant delivery was quite endearing after the glib torrent of oily verbiage we have just had inflicted on us by The Obamessiah for the past few months. Made me long for the drunken era of Grub Street - which he spoke of, when you knew where you stood with the hacks. He seems keen on ethics, which is no doubt why he hired you Melanie. He probably hired Littlejohn because he's keen on Essex. But it does indicate his eclectic mix and why it is important to maintain the popular press to counteract the elitism and ingrained leftist bias of the broadsheets and Beeb. Self-serving hypocrites will of course, accuse him of self-serving hypocrisy. I thought his broadside on the Beeb was a welcome development from the AN, which has been a little cosy with them in the past, apart from your own good self, Melanie (albeit on your blog). Let's hope they feel the draught in W12 and W1, it’s long overdue. He gave the Government a bit of a pasting, too, but seemed to give MacBraun and the Straw man a pass. A bit of inconsistency there, as they are two of the main architects of the Gramsci plan that he implicitly denounced in his speech, but he obviously hopes to maintain a little influence until he switches sides just before the next election (we hope)..

As for the judiciary – it’s now beyond execration; it’s the main cause of the problem this nation now confronts. Get your act together David Cameron and start the Long March back, rather than joining it, which I fear you might if some of your 'manifesto' is not just a ruse.

Welcome back, Melanie. Btw, as you probably won't have time to plough back through all the replies to your 'Freedom thread' may I point out that it predominately very supportive of your efforts to enlighten the American electorate, with a few notable exceptions? Israel (the commenter not the country) has missed you, but for entirely the wrong reasons: he was just dying to whinge away at you and gloat over the Second Coming and couldn’t wait for your return.

catesby

Marriage is a very public act. Any member of the public can attend a wedding, even one held in a church. The whole point is that it involves the public exchange of vows.

Adultery, therefore, is a public matter too.

If someone breaks the vows he/she has made in public, the public has a right to know. It is not a 'private' matter at all.

Besides, how can someone be shamed if they cannot be named?

Dr. F.W.Knox

This article got it exactly right. Formula 1 has a following of several hundred million so ,of course, he is a public figure. Also these women are undoubtedly prostitutes and undoubtedly this was a nazi theme, inasmuch such a "German prison scene" could not have occurred in any other era. The fact that one lawyer, Mr. Eady did not think so, goes against the opinion of many who woulddisagree with him. I dont think too many people who lived through the time of the nazis would agree with Eady, who did not. I am sorry, but we do not have to hang on to this lawyer's words and judge them as gospel. Mosley is a despicable man who is causing grievous harm to Formula 1. Had he one ounce of decency, he would have gone.

Canon Alberic

Its reassuring to find oneself almost agreeing with Melanie again..but: laughable as it is for this dreadful new labour hack to pretend that paying to be tied up and flogged is only depraved if you wear the wrong costume; isnt the public exposure of depravity its own kind of lechery (to paraphrase Dr Johnson)?

Abu Nudnik

I can't stop laughing. He likes to be whipped till he bleeds! And that turns him on! And a newspaper wants to report it! And people want to read it! And he wants to keep it private! And "if" it were Nazi themed it would and if it weren't it wouldn't! And his private acts are not a public interest unless the interested public is treated to this uninteresting display... I hardly know what part is more funny!

J. Isaacs

Seem to remember from a Channel 4 News report during the hearing that one of the prostitutes admitted to wearing a Luftwaffe jacket, which she owned, during the orgy. Clearly the theme of the orgy was pre-arranged in order for her to bring the jacket with her. Mr. Justice Eady must have been at great pains to assure himself that no Nazi Party swastika armband was worn.

Then there was one of Max's German commands; "lebensraum" or something similarly linked to the Nazis, which Mr. Justice Eady apparently ruled was indistinct on the tape recording. He seems to have had to jump through two hoops to explain away Max's behaviour as non-Nazi and reach the judgement he did.

Dixon - "the variety of professional women Mosley hired would never have sex with a client. They were not prostitutes." Dacre observed "the second fellated him." Dixon, your point appears reminiscent of someone else who said on TV, "I did not have sex with that woman."

Nonvexatious

Your argument is a bit circular Melanie, because the countless young people that follow formula one are not likely to be depraved, corrupted or otherwise influenced by his private activities until they know about them. So the papaers have a right to publish them so that everyone knows about them so that everyone can be protected from their shock, horror, influence which is only caused when the details are published?

David Lindsay

If the current judicially imposed arrangement were enacted into the statute law, but with the burden of proof in libel actions placed on the plaintiff, then who could object to that? And why?

stanley Jerusalem

Deuteronomy Chap.35,v.5
"The corruption is not his, it is that of his children."

Now what was his dad;'s name?

EAJSewell

But Paul Dacre's case seems equally feeble, that by preventing newspapers publishing scandal it will reduce readership, which damages democracy. If our democracy depended on the News of the World (or the Daily Mail) we would indeed be have reason to worry. As for "acts of unimaginable sexual depravity"; the idea that a fleet street journalist does not have the imagination for Max Mosley's behaviour undermines his credibility completely.

Ian C

So a mere school-teacher who takes part in (non-Nazi) depraved acts - is that in the public interest? I put that question to all of you who support the judge and Fatty Falconer.

If your answer is no, you must be joking. Therefore, a senior executive of a world wide industry who has a visble profile and influence on so many (young, in particular) lives, his depravity is surely in the public interest - if not in mine as non-consumer of Formula 1?

David

"If your answer is no, you must be joking. "

Why? If the teacher does that behind closed doors, with the consent of other adults, what does it matter? It has no bearing on them teaching biology or history. If they display innapropriate behavior in front of their children, then do something.

If they do it on weekends at home, it's none of your business.

Nick Kaplan

Melanie; Dacre’s argument is absurd. This is nothing to do with public standards of morality. Whatever sick thing Mosley wants to do in the privacy of his own home (or wherever he did it so long as it was in private) with consenting adults is up to him. The only reason this issue became public is because the News of the World decided to report it. Before that it remained an entirely private affair. If anyone is to blame for the “digressions from” “public standards of morality” it’s the idiots who choose to run the story in the first place!

There is no public interest in knowing what Mosley get’s up to in his spare time. However, given the position of his father, a Nazi themed orgy would have been a matter of public interest. The argument of both Eady and Falconer is right on this rare occasion.

Dixon

Dr. F.W.Knox
November 10th, 2008 3:54pm wrote
" This article got it exactly right. Formula 1 has a following of several hundred million so ,of course, he is a public figure. Also these women are undoubtedly prostitutes ..."

Quite clearly, you simply and as a matter of fact DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Unless you think its possible to be a prostitute who doesnt have sex?

Not very bright, in spite of the gratuitous "Dr" label.

Dixon

J. Isaacs
November 10th, 2008 4:20pm wrote:

"Dixon - "the variety of professional women Mosley hired would never have sex with a client. They were not prostitutes." Dacre observed "the second fellated him." Dixon, your point appears reminiscent of someone else who said on TV, "I did not have sex with that woman."

She later retracted her entire story and said in an interview ( for more money ) that she wish she hadnt gone to the press in the first place.

Again, there is a matter of factual knowledge here. I happen to know about that lifestyle. You dont!

Dixon

In this country, its still perfectly lega\l for anyone, including a member of the royal family, to walk about in NAZI regalia if they so wish.

In fact, thousands of people do exactly that in their weekends with historical re-emnactment societies. Nobody claims they are NAZIs or a threat to civil society. Indeed, they are one of only three groups in this country allowed to purchase replica weapons, to enable them to continue their hobby.

No lwas were broken,. Mosley isnt telling anyone else that they cannot do as he does if they so wish. He is not susceptible to blackmail due to any of this...unless the worthy prudery want to make that the case by their attitudes. End of story.....

Dixon

catesby
November 10th, 2008 3:46pm wrote:
"Marriage is a very public act. Any member of the public can attend a wedding, even one held in a church. The whole point is that it involves the public exchange of vows.

Adultery, therefore, is a public matter too.

If someone breaks the vows he/she has made in public, the public has a right to know. It is not a 'private' matter at all."

Next youll want to bring back the pillory, and then stoning to death of the "offender". Ih, why not go the whole way and give us Sharia law dont you?

Besides, how can someone be shamed if they cannot be named?

Kelly

Well said, Melanie. Perhaps one who might find embarrassment from one's actions being presented to the public should refrain from those acts.

D

You don't sound like a toady Mel. You sound like somebody who wouldn't know a good argument if it dressed up as a jihadi and said Boo.

Gareth

Gladstone used to flog himself regularly for his sins.In A Christian society, it is those who don't enjoy flagellation who are "depraved"

robzrob

This man's actions are nothing to do with morality.

We're just like the Americans (according to Gore Vidal). 'In America, morality is just SEX, SEX, SEX.'

Dixon

I'm personally disgusted by those who prate about "depravity".

Usually they have neither knowledge or experience.

Would they want their own tawdry "sex life" put on public display for others to scoff at, laughing perhaps at its putrid dysfunctionality or even its mind-numbngly offensive banality!

People in glass houses...except that the people who are first to throw stones are generally careful to make sure their curtains are all well pulled.

Well, the advance of technology is such that before long, only privacy law will prevent everyones most intimate proclivities being exposed.

THX1138

This all links nicely into Mel's previous moral outrage re the BBC, Brand, Ross and Georgina Sachs aka Voluptua from the Satanic Sluts

According to popbitch which know everything allegedly Ms Voluptua was in a porn flim with the dominatrixes from the recent Max Mosley spanking privacy case.

"I feel totally and utterly exposed", Georgina
told The Sun. Quite.

http://www.popbitch.com

Dixon

THX1138
November 10th, 2008 8:24pm wrote:
" This all links nicely into Mel's previous moral outrage re the BBC, Brand, Ross and Georgina Sachs aka Voluptua from the Satanic Sluts

According to popbitch which know everything allegedly Ms Voluptua was in a porn flim with the dominatrixes from the recent Max Mosley spanking privacy case.

"I feel totally and utterly exposed", Georgina
told The Sun. Quite."

Indeed, a similar realisation came to my mind a few minutes ago. The contrast between Mels article about the BBC and her piece about this case illustrates well how she tunes her acute capacity for insight "up" or"down" according to what she wants the conclusion to be, a-priori.

Then there is the paralell dissonance between seeing the spokesman for the newpapers on TV talking about their civic duty to expose "depravity" when the same papers not infrequently publish full page pictures of barely 18 yr old girls almost naked doing things with riding crops, handcuffs, etc. I cannot but notice this when I walk past the papers on display in the entrance to the newsagent.

It all supports the suspicion one has that the powerful ire of those who denounce "depravity" is derived from their incapacity to realise any comparable realm of experiencial intensity in their own lives.

Dont people buy those sort of rags because they provide a vicarious compensation for the banality of their very existence?

Isnt "moral " outrage really a whine that sounds like the famous "life of quiet desperation".
...If you'll pardon the mixed and conflicting metaphors there!

Roland

I would have thought the activities of Dacre over the years - the debasement of British public life through his paper's never-ending torrent of hatred and bile - to be far more depraved.

jose garcia

I find all this defending of Max Mosley in the name of "privacy" quite sickening

he is not the victim here,

the man is a sick pervert, and deserves all the newspaper time that he can get.

All those people so obsessed with privacy.

Maybe you got something to hide too, otherwise why so much furore defending a cheating husband who pays women to have sadomasochistic sex in nazi uniform?

get real

Mike

Melanie is absolutely right. Depravity should be policied. There should be state cameras in every bedroom to expose any spanking that may take place there, and make it available to the world.
Is this what we want?

Roland

From Polly toynbee in today's Guardian:

''Dacre, the nation's bully-in-chief is, like all bullies, a coward: he refused to go on the Today programme yesterday to argue his case. He never dares face his critics, happy to fry alive all and sundry, never apologising, never explaining. There is a good reason for this: the stance his paper takes on just about everything is so internally contradictory and inconsistent that he could never survive even minimal scrutiny. The Mail's mishmash of lurid scandal, bitching about women and random moralising zigzags all over the place, dishing out pain and praise often according to who it has succeeded in buying with its limitless chequebook, or who has infuriated it by selling their wares to another bidder. ''

Jerry

Everyone should strive to be squeaky clean in their private lives, if only for the children's sake. Families have always been and will always be without sexual expression. When "aberration" raises its ugly head within a family, that family is not long for the scrap heap. Parents do not have sexual relations in front of their children nor are siblings permitted free sexual expression with each other or with their parents without consequences - legal and social. The sociology of "prudish" behavior within families is too lengthy for this post.

However, regarding the judicial decision to look away from the "digressions" of Mr. Mosley, squeaky clean standards should be imposed with the same rigor as within a family. And for a very simple reason: any human with excessive power over others cannot be left unwatched lest he begin to view his fantasies as reasonable and applicable to all. The expression of power, including sexual power, individual and institutional, needs to be moderated by standards that are easily understood and equally applied so as to avoid injustice. Private behavior, when used to express power over others, requires at least observation by the public. In short, decency cannot be limited to those with lower levels of testosterone, at least not without unintended consequences. Life would not be tolerable for most humans if it reached the level of pulp fiction on a daily basis. Note please that many companies have rules about dating among employees.

Ronnie

Yes, Jose Garcia, lets get all the unrepentant depravity out into the open so we can salivate over it. I was getting bored with the Champions League anyway.

I think you might get a bit of a shock Jose.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...!

Israel

Wow!! Slow thread!!

Max Mosley getting his rear end spanked in private by women who consent to do so is up to him, personally l don't want to hear about him.

Max Mosley decendant of the father of the British Fascist movement having Nazi themed parties l would be more concerned about.

stanley Jerusalem

OK, here we go again.

Deuteronomy Chap.35,v.5
"The corruption is not his, it is that of his children."

Now what was his dad;'s name?

roGER

If Max Mosley wants to pay prostitutes that's his business - he's not a politician and his sex life has nothing what-so-ever to do with his job at Formula One.

The News of the World adds little to British life except hypocrisy and Justice Eady was right to fine the newspaper in a court of law.

pcoller

I agree with you on so much but not this. What consenting adults do in their private life is up to them. Sex, ablutions all this is private human activity. None of anyone's business. Some women find rape fantasies a turn on but they don't actually want to be raped. Mosely might enjoy acting out odd things but it need not translate into anything darker. Its someone's private complex world. Maybe his wife should be up to speed but nobody else.

Twelve Stones

I do hate the word 'depraved' in the context of sexual relations between consenting adults.

This is the sort of issue where conservatives get themselves in a terrible mess with very little common ground between the libertarians and the moralists.

At other times, Melanie is a keen supporter of freedom and freedom of expression but when it comes to the peculiarities of the sex lives of individuals, she takes an opposite view.

What he did was behind closed doors and between consenting adults. There was no hypocrisy to expose. It was wrong to publish the story and wrong to claim it was in the public interest.

I read the Mail last Friday and noticed a large photo of a female model with an area of cellulite blown-up so that it could be cleary seen. Is that in the public interest as well?

It's prurience that is the real motive for printing stories of a private nature.

cuffleyburgers

Stop your pathetic moralising.

As far as I can see no crime ws committed. Eade was correct as was Falconer. It has nothing to do with you or with me if Mosley likes a bit of rough trade provided it is done with the consent of all involved, as would appear to be the case.

I am far more concerned about public figures lying to the electorate about the state of the nation's finances, about corruption such as the relaxing of EU aluminium duties curiously timed just after Mandelson's smoozing with Delboyski, with denying people the referendum they have every right to expect about the EU treaty, or about the wholesale destruction of British fisheries by the EU or or African agricultural economies (also by the EU).

Frankly Mosley's bottom comes rather low down my list of things that make me mad.

I seldom read your columns and when I do I find the opinions expressed mostly totally unappetising.

BTW, I have little doubt that Obama will achieve more to help the people of the middle east than you have for all your ridiculous posturing.

Kennybhoy

God help me I never thought I would see the day when I would find myself in agreement with Polly Toynbee...

Her point about the "internally contradictory and inconsistent" nature of the poses struck by Dacre's rag is particularly well made.

Under Dacre the Daily Mail competes with Al-Beeb for the title of foremost purveyor of Anti-American and anti-war propaganda within the British mainsream media! Appeasement is in that rag's blood! Oh aye and with a wee dash of antisemitism thrown in just for seasoning! And did anyone else here catch that boak worthy editorial endorsement of the "Obama Messiah" on the eve of the Presidential election?

ARRGGGHHHH!!

The buggers have got me mixing my metaphors now!!!

Dixon

pcoller
November 11th, 2008 11:55am points out:
I agree with you on so much but not this. What consenting adults do in their private life is up to them. Sex, ablutions all this is private human activity. None of anyone's business. Some women find rape fantasies a turn on but they don't actually want to be raped. Mosely might enjoy acting out odd things but it need not translate into anything darker. Its someone's private complex world. Maybe his wife should be up to speed but nobody else."

Indeed, to describe ( as one poster did ) what took place as "Neo NAZI" betrays both ignorance and woolly mindedness. When my friend, aforementioned "respectable mother of two " dresses up in replica NAZI uniform and tortures her willing adult partner there is nothing whatsoever "neo NAZI" about this. They arent making a political statement. Neither of them are neo NAZI or even Conservative, in any sense. They are merely exploring a fantasy about a situation in which a woman has complete power over a man. The NAZI context merely provides such a scenario, with terrifying historical authenticity and intimidating details ( the uniform, etc ).

The Mosley episode really had nothing to do with neo-NAZI themes even if the fabnntasy theme had been NAZI. People commenting on it seem utterly bereft of any understanding or even basic knowledge of what the use of NAZI imagery in such situatuions means. Ignorance is no basis for any argument.

Moreover, there is not a single supposedly exlusively "male" fantasy that I have not personally witnessed adult women, from 19 to sixty plus engage in among themselves or with men as compliant adjuncts, with no incentive or indication from any male who might have fantasised about such a thing.

Mosley may have paid for his entertainment. But there is a vast section of the population, from 18 to 80 who engage in such activities among themselves, in every urban population centre in the UK on
an entirely regular basis, involving no money or inducement other than their own expression of the complex variety of peculiarities that make a Human being what they are.

Prudes and conformists and "vanilla" people could only learn from them.

Isabella

Get Roland who quotes The Guardian's Pollyanna Toynbee: "The stance his paper takes on just about everything is so internally contradictory and inconsistent that he could never survive even minimal scrutiny".

That would be The Guardian that is run by sickos who bought from Google the search term "Madeleine McCann" to boost its number of web hits?

'The Guardian had bought the Google search term “Madeleine McCann” to boost its ABCe figures, despite being critical of the tabloids’ saturation coverage of the story.'

No wonder The Guardian talks about internal contradictions. They wrote the book on it.

http://www.thejournalist.org.uk/SepOct08/feat_PG.html

Gordon Neil

Paul Dacre and Melanie Phllips are quite right to highlight the potential implications for our society, should the establishment seek to use this judgement and or the HRA to limit the Press's freedom to expose depravations and moral corruption amongst those who may seek or occupy positions of public authority over us. In a democracy such behavior is of legitimate concern to the citizenry, as it helps us to gain insight into their actual character and or weaknesses thereof. Factors which have a direct bearing on whether we would be confident enough to trust them with authority over us. Admittedly Mr Mosley is not a publicly elected official. However the sport he leads does exert influence upon governments, and seeks assiduously to use the Press to project a wholesome image both to the public and the sponsors that fund it. I think therefore only fair that the press have the freedom to report on his behavior in this instance.

Roland

You don't answer the point, Isabella.

Kennybhoy

Isabella,

I very much doubt that Roland and I have, in philosophical or political terms, much in common but regarding your comment above....Are you familiar with the phrase "beside the point"...?

While the example you cite is indeed an egregious specimen of a wider "Guardian hypocrisy" it is not an example of the sort of specific

Conservative Cabbie

Dixon

"Neither of them are neo NAZI or even Conservative"

Isn't that a somewhat superfluous statement, what exactly is the correlation between the two?

Signed
Conservative Cabbie (or should it be Neo-Nazi Cabbie now?)

Kennybhoy

cabbie wrote,

"what exactly is the correlation between the two?"

Aww come on cabbie. Tell me that the question is rhetorical..?

It is an article of left-liberal faith that anyone to the right of them is a fascist of some sort!

Cheers!

PS to Speccie Techy. Whit fur did ye butcher ma last post above man...?

Stuart Hartill

'most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard.'
Actually, I'd say that about some religious activity.
The difference is I don't care what consulting adults get up to. I just wish religionists wouldn't bring their nasty little perversions into my child's school.

Conservative Cabbie

Kennybhoy

"Aww come on cabbie. Tell me that the question is rhetorical..?"

Yup.

Just pointing out another nonsensical liberal statement.

Dixon

Gordon Neil
November 11th, 2008 3:36pm refers to :
" ...a wholesome image both to the public and the sponsors that fund it. I think therefore only fair that the press have the freedom to report on his behavior in this instance."

What does "wholesome" actually mean? I ask, qwuite literally, what is the actual meaning of that hollow word?

Is it "wholesome" for people to pay to watch young men incinerated or torn to shreds for the vicarious excitement it gives them. Thats F1 motor racing.

I would contend that in the lifestyle of any person posting on this forum it would be possible for at least one other such person to find several thibgs that they regard as "immoral", "depraved" , "unwholesome" or otherwise objectionable.

Dixon

Gordon Neil
November 11th, 2008 3:36pm wrote:
"Paul Dacre and Melanie Phllips are quite right to highlight the potential implications for our society, should the establishment seek to use this judgement and or the HRA to limit the Press's freedom to expose depravations and moral corruption amongst those who may seek or occupy positions of public authority over us."

This is pompous cods-wallop! If there were ever a story of genuine public interest, no law in the land would prevent its publication simply because no judge would enforce such a law.

To suggest that Dacres rags are organs of public service is beyond comical, well away with the telly-tubbies in La La land.

As I've already pointed out, unless the laws of this land are reinforced to protect our privacy, the advance of technology is such that anyobody...not just public figurtes...anybody, even Gordon Neil, could wake one day and find their most intimate details posted on the internet for people to laugh at, ridicule or reproach. I dont think most people have the foggiest notion of the explosion in snooping technology that has already occurred in the military and will soon find its way onto our streets into the hands not just of journalists but chavs and trouble makers of the kind who invented "happy slapping" and sick prank phone calls to venerable gentlemen.

Cameras that see through walls are only the least of it.

Unless privacy is given proper protection in law, a certain kind of hell soon awaits us.

Vicky Park

Jose Garcia -

Mr Mosley may be an adulterer ( if sexual activity took place) but he not a 'sick pervert' .
He engages in paraphilia in this case sadomasochism, but appears to have gone about this activity in a sensible and responsible way, with the informed consent of those involved and no risks incurred (other than sore bottoms), it was not significantly interfering with his social or adaptive functions, and was not causing him distress.
Although paraphilia is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) but only if they 'behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning'.
In this case the activity did not meet this criteria therefore he is not ‘a sick pervert’ in accepted clinical terms. He may be a ‘sick pervert’ in your opinion, but that is not interesting.
And though not wishing to ‘big myself up’ it may of relevance that I am a consultant clinical psychologist (and a ‘Dr’ too, Dr F.W.Knox) and see a fair number of people where their paraphilia does cause problems, but not yet sadomasochists who seem to be fairly well balanced, unlike coat and shoe fetishists who do get into trouble.

Frank P

Max Mosley is a depraved a-hole. I knew his father and I'm not surprised that Max turned out to be what he is. His old man, the Barmy Baronet, was round the twist. This was manifestly obvious in the 1930s. It was even more obvious when he had the gall to appear on the hustings post WW2 after he had been released after internment, when I was obliged to guard him at public expense while he spouted more poisonous crap, despite what had happened during the previous decades. He should have been deemed (or 'sectioned' as they now euphemistically call it). What we suffer on behalf of free speech - or did then anyway.

F1 is not a sport; it's an iffy multi-billion commercial enterprise masquerading as a sport.

Vroom! Vroom! Wwhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaata- scaaaaaaaammmmmm ......!

One of the many clouds still hanging over NuLab, too; vide the tobacco advertising scandal. Another connection between right wing fascism and left wing fascism: what's the difference? They're both from the same genetic pool, really: depravity/power-seeking/statism/greed/self-aggrandisment/delusion. Douchebags all. Just goes to show how ceding our sovereignty to wacky European legal dictates has weakened our culture.

Conservative Cabbie

Stuart Harthill

"I just wish religionists wouldn't bring their nasty little perversions into my child's school."

What a nasty bigoted little mind you have!

Dixon

Conservative Cabbie
November 11th, 2008 6:56pm retorted:
" Kennybhoy

"Aww come on cabbie. Tell me that the question is rhetorical..?"

Yup.

Just pointing out another nonsensical liberal statement."

Actually, just demonstrating a futile preoccupation with irrelevance. The "correlation" that you thought you saw in my comment between "neo -NAZI" and "conservative" was one that might have been drawn by others, judgemental of people dressing up in NAZI regalia. That was a subtending aspect of my point! Doh! I actually said my friends were NOT either neo-NAZI or Conservative. This is a statement of divergence. How there can you find a convergence unless in the implied outlook of those who are in fact being refuted!

Now you are suggesting that mine was the statement of a "liberal". Given my endorsement of the rights of individuals to dress up in NAZI regalia in private, I must be careful how I put this. But lets just say that if you read my earlier comments it would be quite apparent that I certainly share nothing in common with the readers of the Guardian!

Mark

"...acts of unimaginable sexual depravity..." A few women in uniform with whips? Mr Dacre should really get out more. And perhaps, Melanie, so should you.

Dr Vicky Park

Sincere apologies to any coat and shoe fetishists I may have offended, the ones I've come across professionally had concurrent psychiatric diagnoses. I have met any number of thoroughly decent fetishists (including a several of well known libertarians), and a former editor of Fetish Times is one of the most charming, wholesome, spiritual and erudite chaps I’ve met.

Dave

So how does this work? I know how I judge the morals of Mel and certainly of Mr Dacre. Yet if I express how I feel in more than anodyne terms my opinions simply won't appear.
In the end ordinary people need protecting from the spurious value judgements of those with access to newsprint and websites.
And yes, I'm afraid even the head of F1 is an ordinary person in this case.

Superted

My God, I can't believe what consenting adults are getting up to these days, and in private of all places!

Dr. F.W.Knox

"Dixon" seems to be making this the dixon columns, writing an awful lot of rubbish, It has been reported many times that Mosley later had sex with the prostitutes. Perhaps you should be a little less assinine with your attacks on the columnists.
I do have the integrity to provide my name. And title.

Conservative Cabbie

Dixon

I was in a liberal bashing mood yesterday - those moods come on me from time to time - actually I hesitated on the draw because my impression of you from reading your comments was that you weren't a liberal - having checked previous comments, it seems I was right so my apologies.

Having said that, divergence or no divergence, unless you were being ironic which is always hard to tell in forums such as this, the words neo-nazi and conservative do not belong in close proximity. Re-reading the statement, I still don't see it's point. If there was no intended convergence, then you may as well have said "my friends were not either neo-nazis or conservatives or fluffy bunny rabbits". It's probably just me though.

Again my apologies on a very poorly aimed shot. I should be keeping my powder primed for real liberals.

david skinner

Mosley famously said at his trial that what he had done did no harm to anyone else and that what he did in private was therefore of no concern to anyone one else , presumably not even to his wife.

But adultery carries in its slip stream other sins. He has lied and deceived his wife and all those present at this wedding; he has stolen that which belonged to his wife and spent it on himself and he has helped to dehumanise and degrade the girls he hired.
The man’s insatiable appetite to covet bodies that belong to others is an addiction.
The very last thing that Max Mosely is looking for is a personal relationship or even a person. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be necessary piece of equipment. Having consumed the sexual pleasure he is happy to discard the body for another.

The way we act in public will depend on the way we act in private. Do we live integrate or disintegrate lives? We are accountable and responsible to one another.

Ephesians 5: 8ff: “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."

Matthew 10: 26ff: “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.”

John3:19ff: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

All this is relevant to the fact that government is enforcing sex education on children as young as five. I’ll tell what that essential message is . Do what ever you like; your life is your own but be wise and use a condom.

KindnessofWomen

Whatever the outcome of the court case, the News of the World had legitimate public interest grounds for writing about Mosley's orgy - specifically, it's appearance of having a Nazi/concentration camp theme. Eady's ruling that it did not have such a theme was subjective at best.

By extending privacy law along human rights lines, Eady has given the rich and powerful (i.e. politicians) greater protection from scrutiny than they previously enjoyed. And this at a time when the state is stepping up its surveillance of citizens in all areas (local councils using anti-terrorist legislation to justify spying on people; Jacqui Smith's recent admission that the government is looking to creating a giant centralised database of all email, text, phone and web traffic).

To put the matter in stark terms, a free press is one of the cornerstones of a free society. Increasing the scope of privacy laws restricts the freedom of the press. And any such restriction effectively increases the power of the state by default, in so far as it limits the ability of journalists to hold our so-called rulers to account. The irony, of course, being that the human rights privacy laws were supposedly intended to protect the individual from the state.

For what it's worth, here's the view from a cross-section of the legal profession:

http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=135628&d=415&h=417&f=416

Dexter

The point which Paul Dacre was making and which appears to have escaped most of those supporting the Eady judgement was that it was based on an individual’s interpretation of the Human Rights Act, rather than on an Act of Parliament which at least would have been the subject of public scrutiny and comment during its passage

The argument that the Daily Mail is a "scurrilous rag" is quite beside the point. One may agree with that and one may agree that it was in bad taste to publish what it did without supporting the arbitrary use of the power of the HRA to advance a personal agenda of what should be the law.

Some lawyers have argued that the judgement was “applying the law as Parliament intended”. If so then they must accept that Parliament also intended the frustration of various Home Secretaries in their attempts to restrain or eject foreign nationals deemed a threat to our security, that photographs of escaped criminals should not be published for fear of infringing their “right to privacy” and that the Somalian pirates should enjoy immunity from arrest or restraint

Dixon

Dr. F.W.Knox
November 12th, 2008 4:41am wrote:
"Dixon" seems to be making this the dixon columns, writing an awful lot of rubbish, It has been reported many times that Mosley later had sex with the prostitutes. Perhaps you should be a little less assinine with your attacks on the columnists.
I do have the integrity to provide my name. And title."

Ive made it a point to HOG this thread, from the start, because the topic affects me and my friends, personally and it is something I actually do know a great deal about.
YOU Sir, on the other hand, appear to know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. You say Mosley "later" had sex with the women. If I "later" have sex with a woman, that does not make her a prostitute. Meanwhile, the service they were paid for was a "scene", and those who do that for money do NOT have sex as part of the service. A dominatrix is not a prostitute, and no amount of prattling on your part will change that any more than the greatest sophist could make black into white.

In any event, whether they were or were not prostitutes IN THIS INSTANCE, has absolutely no bearing upon the broader issue.

As for you "title", that is pure and utter pomposity. As is underlined by your gratuitously drawing attention to it. What does it actually mean? I ask all and sundry, "Does anyone here giove a fig for this blokes title"? How utterly ridiculous.

Putting your name to posts actually indicates a degree of either inexperience or foolishness. Consider this, if that is indeed your name and a professional title, anyone researching you on Google will potentiallydiscover your making a string of pompous moralising and bigoted remarks on this thread. I can tell you, among your professional acquaintances, clients or associates, THERE WILL BE a certain number of individuals who lead fetish lives entirely unknown to you. Unless you exist in complete seclusion this is a statistical certainty. How would someone---could be almost anyone you know and work with --- who secretly enjoys a bit of S&M, regard you once they have discovered what a confounded prig you are?

Dixon

Re Conservative Cabbie.

Thanks mate. You confirm my thought that we are really on the same "side of the house" about most things but got in a twist over my choice of words.

To clarify what I meant by "neither of them are neo NAZI or even Conservative": the people who accuse someone of being a "neo NAZI" are also those liable to take objection to someone merely for being "Conservative" ( indeed, the sort of linkage that might well be found in the views of a Gruniad reading liberal ) but those are the sort of people whose interpretations of my friends behaviour I am criticising. Not mine. Hence my "convergence / divergence" distinction. Otherwise, as you say, one might say "neither a neo-NAZI nor a NU Labour supporter". Although I gather many liberals indeed draw an equation between those two! As do others.

mark ramsden

"and a former editor of Fetish Times is one of the most charming, wholesome, spiritual and erudite chaps I’ve met." Dr Vicky Parks

I'm also a former editor of Fetish Times, rather surprised to see our organ (now spent) referenced here.
Glad to hear Spencer is in good spiritual health.

And most excellent to see Mr Mosely sticking it right up the News of the World.

Freedom 1 Curtain Twitchers 0.

Dixon

But I really must return to our "Dr. Knox".

The simple fact is that calling people names ( "asinine" ) and denouncing their arguments as "an awful lot of rubbish" does not constitute a winning debating strategy in, I think, anyones estimation. It merely demonstrates that when I took apart his earlier comments he really had no counter argument to come back with in defence.

Dixon

...Incidentally, apropos my prognostications about the need for laws to protect our privacy to be strengthened, I notice that a high-street electronics chjain is selling ( for £69.99 ) a ballpoint pen that contains a video camera, "highly sensitive microphone" and recordunng capacity of 2 Gigabytes. Just what an enterprising internet TV larrakin would need to leave on some unsuspecting persond desk to capture their embarrassing private moments to later recover and broadcast for the world to see!

To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller: "First they used hidden-cameras on Max Mosley, then........by the time it got to me there was noone left who hadnt had their private life "exposed" to public scrutiny".

Jill

There are some details about this world we don't want to know about...
---------------------------
Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple strudels
Doorbells and sleighbells
And schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winter that melts into spring
These are a few of my favorite things

When the dog bites
When the bee stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I don't feel...so bad
-------------------------

:) all better. It really works!

Dave

Clearly since Mel and Mr Dacre are also public figures we need them to fill us in on every detail of their sex lives too. Just in case.

Dixon

Incidentqally, I must apologise for what looks like a gratuitous use of upper case. Its because I dont know how to make words ITALIC on this message board!

david skinner

The following may bring comfort to Dr. F.W Knox:

No doubt about it! God is good— good to good people, good to the good-hearted. But I nearly missed it, missed seeing his goodness. I was looking the other way, looking up to the people at the top, envying the stiff-necked, bulging-eyed and strutting peacocks who have it made, who have nothing to worry about, not a care in the whole wide world, pretentious with arrogance, they wear the latest fashions in violence, pampered and overfed, decked out in silk bows of silliness. they jeer, using words to kill; they bully their way with words ( many, many word). They're full of hot air, loudmouths disturbing the peace. People actually listen to them—can you believe it? Like thirsty puppies, they lap up their words.

What's going on here? Is God out to lunch? Nobody's tending the store. The brute beast, fit for slaughter, get by with everything; they have it made, piling up riches. I've been stupid to play by the rules; what has it gotten me? A long run of bad luck, that's what— a slap in the face every time I walk out the door.

If I'd have given in and talked like this, I would have betrayed our dear children.
Still, when I tried to figure it out, all I got was a splitting headache. That is,
until I entered the sanctuary of God. Then I saw the whole picture: the slippery road you've put them on, like insects on the rim of an carnivorous plant, with a final crash in a ditch of delusions. In the blink of an eye, disaster! A blind curve in the dark, and—nightmare! We wake up and rub our eyes....Nothing. There's nothing to them. And there never was.

When I was beleaguered and bitter, totally consumed by envy, I was totally ignorant, a dumb ox in your very presence. I'm still in your presence, but you've taken my hand. You wisely and tenderly lead me, and then you bless me. You're all I want in heaven! You're all I want on earth! When my skin sags and my bones get brittle, God is rock-firm and faithful. Look! Those who left you are falling apart! Deserters, they'll never be heard from again. But I'm in the very presence of God— oh, how refreshing it is! I've made Lord God my home.
God, I'm telling the world what you do!

EC

Conservative Cabbie,

Careful "mate!" You might end up in Epping Forest tied to a tree with your fare insisting upon calling you Brenda. Or maybe even Eva! LOL.

Tim Robinson

Yes you do sound like a toady and so does Littlejohn in today's Daily Mail!

I'd never heard of him and nor I supsect had the "countless young people", before it was splashed across the papers.

YouCannotBeSerious!

"So the role of newspapers in bringing to light the moral failings of public figures"

Oh right, so that's what Dacre is arguing for then. And there was I thinking that he was worried about falling Daily Mail circulation figures, if he is unable to write about the sex lives of people in the public eye.

It's all about morality - I get it now!

Ronnie

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...'

david skinner

If you saw a burglar breaking into someone’s house would you remember some petit theft of your own and walk on by, without raising the alarm.

Ronnie

David Skinner, no.

Dixon

david skinner
November 14th, 2008 10:03pm
"If you saw a burglar breaking into someone’s house would you remember some petit theft of your own and walk on by, without raising the alarm."

Where is there any analogy with the topic of discussion?

driver92

These movements are the starting point for any serious weight-training program. ,

GanjaBoy48

Figure 8 shows a repre' sentative scatter plot. ,