Comments

View comments:
1. 11 Melanie says:
   July 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

   agw, thanks. I think my paranoia got the better of me

2. 10 dairy says:
   July 25th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

   …it’ll itch and the hair will grow back thicker, so there…!!

   if they had just said he took part in a “sick orgy” (leaving out the Nazi bit), would he have got the same compensation….?

3. 9 bill says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

   Having your bum shaved?

   Never thought of that one.

   Hmm, off to have a chat with the missus…

4. 8 Melanie says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

   agw, who was the polite coughing aimed at? Nobody mentioned libel other than the anorak headline.

   -agw It was directed at the person who wrote the headline.

5. 7 agw says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

   Well there’s no doubt he made a clean-shaven arse of himself then?
   Allegedly, since only his backside was on show. Full brush, soap and towel job, or a cheapskate foam from a tube affair?
   Don’t write in to tell me. It’s the sort thing Esther Rantzen may be able to do deeply journalistic things with. I would have thought on the lines of previous Rantzen classics such as:
   “Doesn’t Max Mosely’s bottom look like Herman Goering’s Bavarian spuds?”
   That should do nicely methinks M’Luds.

6. 6 chenier says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

   There is some speculation that, since Justice Eady found as a fact that the sessions did not involve a Nazi theme, Mosley might now sue those papers who claimed that it did for libel.

   There is further speculation that Mosley may appeal against the failure to award punitive damages.

   I am not speculating in asserting that the judgement has some memorable passages:

   ‘The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved – apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) “shaking with laughter”. I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display….’

7. 5 agw says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

   Ahem!! and other polite coughing noises.
   No Herr Max did no such thing..
   This was not a libel case it was under the Right to privacy legislation.

   The High Court ruled the News of the World did breach Mr Mosley’s privacy, awarding him £60,000 in damages.

   Mr Justice Eady said he could expect privacy for consensual “sexual activities (albeit unconventional)”.

   Mr Mosley admitted a sado-masochistic sex session with five prostitutes, but denied that it had a Nazi theme.

   My wife says I can’t afford one of the high class German prostitutes, so leaping in to copy the F1 Racing Circuit boss is a very unlikely scenario. The News of the World can sent their ratfink-stool-pigeon cheque to me c/oThe Anorak Fighting Fund, Anorak Towers, EC1 6FF

8. 4 yampster says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

   Yes it won’t even buy him one of his favourite Ferraris. (Allegedly)

9. 3 Melanie says:
   July 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

   I think this argument has been aired before somewhere but £60,000 is a small price to pay for what the NOTW got out of this story.

   £60,000 is not a lot of money either to somebody like Mosley. Certainly not worth the behind-the-back sniggering he’ll have to endure now.

   We bemoan our press, but we get exactly what we deserve.

10. 2 yampster says:
    July 24th, 2008 at 11:42 am

    Jawohl! (klop)

11. 1 coolandcalm says:
    July 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am

    I actually support Mosley. However distasteful some of us may find his sexual preferences and activities… he was inside a private property with consenting adults doing nothing which is against the law.

    I think it is scary that the NOTW really thought it could get away with that and then resorted to saying it was in the public interest!
    If the parallel media now think twice before trying to ruin someone elses life for the sake of reader tittilation then good for Max!

View comments: