I heard Max Mosley on the radio tonight saying that it would take his family years to get over the exposure in the paper of his sordid little sex games. And what right did a newspaper have to destroy a family like that?
Um, was it the exposure that destroyed the family? Or was it his actions?
I'm not condoning the newspaper just thinking that, perhaps, he should be less, um, self-righteous.
4 comments:
I do think that frankly I'm not sure it was "in the public interest" to be exposed etc. I'm a huge motor racing fan and I don't care but think he should go just simply due to the farcical inconsistency of decisions I see week in week out at major races. I don't care about the other stuff I just don't think he does a good job.
However as you say Liz if he choses to live that life he needs to deal with the consequences.
"Don't gamble with that you can't afford to lose" was a recent quote someone gave me and it's a good think to consider.
I have no idea about what sort of manager he was and whether he should have resigned. I also think some of the justification the press give for their actions is laughable. AS you say, why on earth would it be in the public interest?
I do like that quote you quoted.
If he'd done nothing, and then the press did whatever they do, he'd be right to complain.
Yes, that's a good quote.
Now if ithe had been his dad, I'd have said he was getting shirty ;-)
Post a Comment