Not going into the full story – but in case you didn’t know, a man called Max Mosley – head of the FIA (which runs Formula One) was snapped having a BDSM orgy with, I think it was 4 young women.  There appeared to be, shall we say, a ‘German’ theme harking back to darker times.

An English paper, the News of the World, bought the snaps (taken by one of the participants) and published them without forewarning him – in good ol’ tabloid fashion.  As a result, his position was called into question, and many people were putting pressure on him to resign.  Also, of course, his family were none-to-pleased.

Needless to say, he took them to court, and won.

Now, this is happening – I originally heard about it on a bulletin on BBC Radio 4, and as I listened to it, I simply couldn’t believe my ears.  I don’t care what kind of sexual activity he gets up to in either an intra or extra-marital capacity.  Also, in many respects I actually agree with aspects of the changes to the law that he wants to effect, i.e. ensuring the right to reply for a target of such a news story before it is published, especially in those cases where the story turns out to be a load of bollocks (Freddie Start ate my Hamster, anyone?).

However, I question Max’s motives in this – and think he should realise that a right to reply would not have prevented the huge hailstorm of shite that has no doubt rained down upon him in his family life.

There’s a particular paragraph in the above-linked article which summarises the whining, snivelling drivel that I heard quoted from him:

"Mr Mosley comments that it is wrong that a tabloid editor can destroy a family and wreck a life when he doesn't seem to understand that perhaps his own admitted adultery over many years was the cause of his domestic problems rather than the publication."

Absolutely bang-on, Director of the Society of Editors, Bob Satchwell.

The comments to which he makes reference effectively said that this new law is required to prevent nosey and self-serving Editors of tabloids from being able to reap devastation on the families of the targets of their articles by publishing them.  Apparently the publication of these photographs has seriously affected his son and wife, and everybody else in his family.

No shit?

In nothing of what he said did he actually publicly acknowledge any responsibility for his actions, instead he laid the blame firmly at the feet of the newspaper concerned.

A word to you, Mr Mosley: It is not the fact that your wife and children saw these photographs of you being unfaithful – it is the very fact of your unfaithfulness that has done the destruction.  What bothers you the most about all of this is that you’ve lost face.  Don’t try to act as if you want to protect your family, because if you had any sense of injustice on their behalf them then you wouldn’t have been doing this kind of shit in the first place.  Ultimately, your desire to seek a legal right-to-reply is because you didn’t get a chance to get your story straight before it went out – and perhaps you have a whole load of other skeletons in closets that you are now concerned might also come out?

Either way, grow up and take some responsibility for the fact that you betrayed your family – show the world that you are actually worth all that money and adulation that you so obviously think you deserve.  Except the reality is that most of the people in this world actually think you’re a twat who deserves everything he gets – so wouldn’t be impressed if you allowed your poor wife to whip you on live television as punishment – which you’d no doubt enjoy judging by your sexual taste - we’d all be watching it out of amusement, not admiration.

What if the young lady, whose saw the opportunity to make some cash a rather less disgusting way than doing kinky sexual acts with a man old enough to be her grandfather – and take some photos that she could sell, had decided instead to simply go straight to your family herself?

No doubt you would blame her for destroying your family, but would you be taking her to court?  Would you be seeking out a law to prevent paid-for mistresses telling on their occasional employers?  Of course not – because you couldn’t.

No point in shutting the door after the horse has bolted – if you’ve done something that’s going to hurt somebody as close to you as those in your family, where there is a presumed trust by virtue of that family bond, then it doesn’t matter whether they find out by newspaper, private investigator, gossip, or a concerned party seeking to right the wrong out of moral obligation.  By committing the act you lose the right to moral, and therefore legal, high-ground – so don’t try to shoot the messenger; shoot yourself instead.