Max Mosley - Part Two

I'm trying to work out where the public interest part of the whole Max Mosley story lies. I can understand the moral issues against prostitution and also the fact that he cheated on his wife of 45 years. Yet these have become secondary issues to the act itself. And considering this was out of work time, in his own private dwelling, away from the public eye and with consenting adults, I just don't see why any of this matters in the real world? I mean, does it really affect his ability to do his job? It's not even like an MP who represents his constituents, he runs a private company, effectively, whose aim is to govern (and raise money for) a major world sport.
 
The problem I have is the ruling on the S&M side of things. It may have started off as a "Nazi Orgy" allegation but it has since moved to encompass all of BDSM and anyone who has interest away from the perceived norm.

It is stated by the paper that "Taking part in depraved and brutal S&M orgies on a regular basis does not in our opinion constitute the fit and proper behaviour to be expected of someone in his hugely influential position".

This implies that anyone who indulges in S&M is not fit to hold a position of influence. Why is that? I don't understand the link? How can you be untrustworthy if you are into S&M? Indeed, surely S&M implies having more trust in someone rather than less as, particularly if you are a submissive, you are putting your own life/well-being in the hands of someone else.

The fact is that what people do in their own private lives should remain just that (provided no laws have been broken) and it should have no bearing whatsoever on the reputation of that person whatsoever. Granted, in reality this will never be the case but the defence that this was in the public interest is something I simply do not comprehend. Even if he does represent people, that's in a professional setting and not in his own private life and I have heard no complaints about his professional conduct at all.

The tabloids are also blaming Europe for this ruling. They never miss a trick do they? Any chance to pounce on a scapegoat and influence public opinion to further their own agenda and they are quick to pounce on it. This is why I am happy for the tabloids to stick to Big Brother stories and what Amy Whinehouse is doing.

Investigative journalism has apparently also taken a hit. It has been quoted that: "“Mr Justice Eady has effectively said that there are no circumstances when cameras are allowed in the bedroom.”. WHY SHOULD WHAT GOES ON IN A BEDROOM MATTER? HOW IS THIS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? Yes, if people are committing fraud or embezzelment then fine, I can see the need for investigative journalism. But to knock prominent people for indulging in completely legal acts simply to sell newspapers - this is what the public needs to be protected against.

Morality has already been cited but again, just because you don't understand something, it does not make it immoral. If everyone is CONSENTING and OVER THE AGE OF CONSENT then where is the problem here? Okay, perhaps this issue may be being assimilated with the cheating on his wife thing but I don't see how BDSM is immoral. In fact, from my experience, the people into BDSM are probably the most moral and empathetic people I have met and as far away as the many readers of these newspapers who seem to believe that to be different is a sin worthy of pillioring.

Max Mosley - Part Two

I'm trying to work out where the public interest part of the whole Max Mosley story lies. I can understand the moral issues against prostitution and also the fact that he cheated on his wife of 45 years. Yet these have become secondary issues to the act itself. And considering this was out of work time, in his own private dwelling, away from the public eye and with consenting adults, I just don't see why any of this matters in the real world? I mean, does it really affect his ability to do his job? It's not even like an MP who represents his constituents, he runs a private company, effectively, whose aim is to govern (and raise money for) a major world sport.
 
The problem I have is the ruling on the S&M side of things. It may have started off as a "Nazi Orgy" allegation but it has since moved to encompass all of BDSM and anyone who has interest away from the perceived norm.

It is stated by the paper that "Taking part in depraved and brutal S&M orgies on a regular basis does not in our opinion constitute the fit and proper behaviour to be expected of someone in his hugely influential position".

This implies that anyone who indulges in S&M is not fit to hold a position of influence. Why is that? I don't understand the link? How can you be untrustworthy if you are into S&M? Indeed, surely S&M implies having more trust in someone rather than less as, particularly if you are a submissive, you are putting your own life/well-being in the hands of someone else.

The fact is that what people do in their own private lives should remain just that (provided no laws have been broken) and it should have no bearing whatsoever on the reputation of that person whatsoever. Granted, in reality this will never be the case but the defence that this was in the public interest is something I simply do not comprehend. Even if he does represent people, that's in a professional setting and not in his own private life and I have heard no complaints about his professional conduct at all.

The tabloids are also blaming Europe for this ruling. They never miss a trick do they? Any chance to pounce on a scapegoat and influence public opinion to further their own agenda and they are quick to pounce on it. This is why I am happy for the tabloids to stick to Big Brother stories and what Amy Whinehouse is doing.

Investigative journalism has apparently also taken a hit. It has been quoted that: "“Mr Justice Eady has effectively said that there are no circumstances when cameras are allowed in the bedroom.”. WHY SHOULD WHAT GOES ON IN A BEDROOM MATTER? HOW IS THIS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? Yes, if people are committing fraud or embezzelment then fine, I can see the need for investigative journalism. But to knock prominent people for indulging in completely legal acts simply to sell newspapers - this is what the public needs to be protected against.

Morality has already been cited but again, just because you don't understand something, it does not make it immoral. If everyone is CONSENTING and OVER THE AGE OF CONSENT then where is the problem here? Okay, perhaps this issue may be being assimilated with the cheating on his wife thing but I don't see how BDSM is immoral. In fact, from my experience, the people into BDSM are probably the most moral and empathetic people I have met and as far away as the many readers of these newspapers who seem to believe that to be different is a sin worthy of pillioring.