Max Mosely is there no shame

With regards to the issue of consent, consider the following example. Many people (if not all) who joined the Branch Davidians (the cult involved in the Waco siege) did so consensually. However, that is not to say that the cult members were not victims of crimes just because they consented to them.

One could argue that these people were "brainwashed"; however, according to DSM IV criteria sadism and masochism are mental illnesses...

By the way, he's the link to the International Classification of Diseases version 10 as used by the World Health Organisation. See F65.5

ICD-10:

Another point that should be taken into account is that Mr Mosely is a representative of an International organisation.

What we may tolerate in the UK may not be tolerated elsewhere in the world. People in these roles need to be seen to be conforming with accepted norms, even if they aren't.

ICD and DSM4 are a little imprecise when it comes to diagnosing mental health disorders, by their nature - see compare and contrast their sections on personality disorders for an illustration of this. If you want to see some examples of sexual sadism and masochism that arguably could be classed as a mental disorder then there are plenty of examples on the more esoteric corners of the web, but if you feel that Mosley has a diagnosable mental disorder, I would imagine that you would say the same for many of his compatriots - flagellation isn't known as lav ice Anglais for nothing.

The point about his position being untenable is quite possibly correct, but the fact remains that unless there are very sound reasons for making his activities public (and that that interests the public is not always in the public interest), the paper had no business to do so - and I'm not at all convinced by the comparison with Branch Dravidians - it's quite a leap of bothe nature and degree to go from a little light S&M in a Chelsea basement to a fully fledged religious cult.

It's just the NOTW indulging (again) its readership's fondness for the voyeuristic and prurient - if there is an argument to be made at ain this case, it's that finding in favour of Mosely would set a dangerous precedent that could hamper the ability of the press to publish investigative journalism, which would be a massively retrograde step in a country that already has some of the most restrictive libel laws in the developed world, but if that does happen, it may well be a case of the press getting the laws they deserve.

Originally Posted by Seabadger

ICD and DSM4 are a little imprecise when it comes to diagnosing mental health disorders, by their nature - see compare and contrast their sections on personality disorders for an illustration of this. If you want to see some examples of sexual sadism and masochism that arguably could be classed as a mental disorder then there are plenty of examples on the more esoteric corners of the web, but if you feel that Mosley has a diagnosable mental disorder, I would imagine that you would say the same for many of his compatriots - flagellation isn't known as lav ice Anglais for nothing.

The point I was making recarding DSM-IV and ICD-10 was to confirm that sadism and masochism are considered to be outside the norm within our culture.

Originally Posted by Seabadger

The point about his position being untenable is quite possibly correct, but the fact remains that unless there are very sound reasons for making his activities public (and that that interests the public is not always in the public interest), the paper had no business to do so -

I would argue that the fact that someone in a position of power (i.e., the President of FIA) gets sexual pleasure from exercising power and from humiliating others is relevant and in the public interest. Indeed, there are some who might argue that this might explain his handling of the 'Spygate' saga.

Originally Posted by Seabadger

and I'm not at all convinced by the comparison with Branch Dravidians - it's quite a leap of bothe nature and degree to go from a little light S&M in a Chelsea basement to a fully fledged religious cult.

The point being made was simply because someone has consented to something doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

Originally Posted by Seabadger

It's just the NOTW indulging (again) its readership's fondness for the voyeuristic and prurient - if there is an argument to be made at ain this case, it's that finding in favour of Mosely would set a dangerous precedent that could hamper the ability of the press to publish investigative journalism, which would be a massively retrograde step in a country that already has some of the most restrictive libel laws in the developed world, but if that does happen, it may well be a case of the press getting the laws they deserve.

By that token you must agree that if the Court finds against Mosely he will have got what he deserves.

According to this article there will be a ruling today.

Mosley 'was set up by Formula One enemies' - Home News, UK - The Independent

The point I was making recarding DSM-IV and ICD-10 was to confirm that sadism and masochism are considered to be outside the norm within our culture.

It doesn't float my boat, but it would be strateching the definition of abnormal to suggest that it is. I don't think relying on a purely medical definition is particularly helpful in all circumstances. No man is a hero to his valet and I'd expect that public life would be decimated if every public figure's smallest pecadillo and whim was to be advertised via teh Sunday tabloids.

Indeed, there are some who might argue that this might explain his handling of the 'Spygate' saga.

Please tell me you're not trying to suggest that he may have got some sort of sexual kick out of this.

The point being made was simply because someone has consented to something doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

Thanks for the clarification - although I still think the BD issue is a poor analogy to draw. As it happens, you're largely right, although there's a much wider debate to be had about to what extent the law should involve itself with matters between two consenting adults. It should be noted that no criminal charges have been brought, so the relevance of this is limited at best.

By that token you must agree that if the Court finds against Mosely he will have got what he deserves.

Not at all - as I hoped I had made clear, the court faces jurisprudicial difficulties in that finding in favour of Mosley would be entirely equitable and put a restriction on the activities of tabloids, but would, at the same time, limit the scope of legitimate investigative journalism to the point that we would have the press of France.

Final question - do you actually think that this is good or useful journalism?

Originally Posted by Seabadger

Final question - do you actually think that this is good or useful journalism?

Right to the heart of the debate imho.

Originally Posted by Seabadger

It doesn't float my boat, but it would be strateching the definition of abnormal to suggest that it is. I don't think relying on a purely medical definition is particularly helpful in all circumstances. No man is a hero to his valet and I'd expect that public life would be decimated if every public figure's smallest pecadillo and whim was to be advertised via teh Sunday tabloids.

I think whether one believes S&M should or should not be considered abnormal is a different question. The fact is that at the moment it is defined as abnormal.

Originally Posted by Seabadger

Please tell me you're not trying to suggest that he may have got some sort of sexual kick out of this.

I don't think personality traits or states can simply be turned on and off...

Originally Posted by Seabadger

Thanks for the clarification - although I still think the BD issue is a poor analogy to draw. As it happens, you're largely right, although there's a much wider debate to be had about to what extent the law should involve itself with matters between two consenting adults. It should be noted that no criminal charges have been brought, so the relevance of this is limited at best.

A fair point, but I think it is worth raising as Mosley has insisted that what he did was not illegal, whereas in fact the legality of his actions have not been tested.

Originally Posted by Seabadger

Not at all - as I hoped I had made clear, the court faces jurisprudicial difficulties in that finding in favour of Mosley would be entirely equitable and put a restriction on the activities of tabloids, but would, at the same time, limit the scope of legitimate investigative journalism to the point that we would have the press of France.

Well, Mosely appears to have won, although the damages where not as high as he had requested. It will be interesting to see what developes as a result of this.

Final question - do you actually think that this is good or useful journalism?[/quote]

I think that its been of higher quality than say the tabloid handling of the Madeline Mccan story...

I think that its been of higher quality than say the tabloid handling of the Madeline Mccan story

Damning with the faintest of praise there? I still disagree with almost every point you've made in this thread, but I think this would now be the time to let things lie.

Originally Posted by PC7671

According to this article there will be a ruling today.

Mosley 'was set up by Formula One enemies' - Home News, UK - The Independent

I wonder if MM will summon the people he feels set him up for a good spanking as punishment

Well surprise surprise it looks like the Gutter press lost

He is suing them for libel now and interestingly he intends to donate a “significant amount” to a legal fund to enable the man in the street to start privacy actions against newspapers for alleged breaches of privacy.

Max Mosley to pursue further legal action in Europe - Telegraph

Here's a great footnote culled from
this week's PrivateEye.


Turns out the scumbag journo behind
this sting Neville Thurbeck (no relation)
actually once offered a "naturist" guest-
house owning couple 75 quid to kneel
at the end of their bed and pleasure
himself whilst they had sex.

He tried to make out it was all down to
them but unfortunately there was vid
footage clearly showing otherwise.

When was his day in court to answer
for his pervyness and cheating on his
wife? "The public have a right to know"
Don't they?