Perverted censor litigant Max Mosley, Like Father, Like Son?

[TonyGosling]

Formula One boss Max Mosley 'exposed as sadomasochist in Nazi orgy with five prostitutes'



30/03/08 - News section
Formula One motor racing chief Max Mosley has been embroiled in a sensational sex scandal after footage that reportedly shows him taking part in a Nazi-style sex orgy with up to five hookers surfaced.
A video reportedly shows Mosley - the son of British World War 2 fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, a friend of Adolf Hitler - giving orders in German as he lashes girls wearing mock death camp uniforms and is himself whipped until he bleeds.
The video shows him alternating between masochist and sadist, first obeying orders and then doling out punishment in German, and having sex with his "victims".
The footage was obtained by the News of the World, which reported that the orgy went on for five hours at a £2million riverside flat on Chelsea Embankment on Friday.
A spokesman for the FIA, Formula One's governing body, insisted the footage was "a matter for Mr Mosley and the News of the World, and the FIA have no comment".
Mosley, 67, has been married to wife Jean since 1960. He is a friend to FI billionaire Bernie Ecclestone and racing star Lewis Hamilton, and the son of the notorious Sir Oswald Mosley, who had Hitler as a guest of honour at his marriage.
In public Mosley has refused to condemn his father's politics.
The grainy film appears to show Mosley whipping hookers dressed in uniforms reminiscent of Auschwitz garb while declaring they need more punishment, as other hookers dressed in Nazi uniforms look on.
It also records Mosley himself appearing to play a death camp inmate, having himself flogged so hard he needed to have his wounds dressed.
The News of the World claimed he paid £2,500 for the orgy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_artic le_id=550109&in_page_id=1770

[paul wright]

Sounds like the ritualistic type of sexuality these kind of guys like
Just a paper thin between pain and pleasure as the Maquis remarked
An explanation for the Blair smirk
They reiterate it in their torture scenarios
Oooh - wish I was in there.....
Will be soon, no doubt

[rodin]

Max Moseley and Bernie Ecclestone? Of the cash-for-cigarette-advertising fame? Scoundrels of a feather. Bernie Ecclestone is not a Nazi too is he? LOL

[TonyGosling]

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/AntiSemi/12756.htm

Rich Racing Brit Max Mosely lives up to Daddy's legacy with Nazi sexy orgy
By Israel Insider staff March 31, 2008

http://jalopnik.com/373884/f1-boss-max-mosley-caught-with-five-hookers -in-nazi-orgy-video-scandal

Formula One chief Mosley gives the checkered flag a whole new meaning

Eliot Spitzer looks like a choir boy compared to the son of infamous British wartime fascist leader Oswald Mosley, Adolf Hitler's pal. By day, Max Mosely was the millionaire head of the Formula One racing concern. By night, the F1 boss appeared to enjoy even racier roles: a sado-masochist sex pervert who enjoyed dressing up as a Nazi -- as well as a concentration camp Jew, re-enacting "camp" scenes with no less than five very well paid hookers.

The YouTube version has been removed but this clip still remains here.

The Oxford-educated former barrister played the role of both guard and inmate. Speaking in German and brandishing a leather whip, he beat the women -- but only after allowing himself to be subjected to a humiliating inspection for lice on his head and genitals, interrogated in chains.

The News of the World tabloid -- part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp -- has it all on videotape, all five hours of it, reporting blow-by-blow how Mad Max "is filmed romping with five hookers at a depraved NAZI-STYLE orgy in a torture dungeon. Mosley -- a friend to F1 big names like Bernie Ecclestone and Lewis Hamilton -- barks ORDERS in GERMAN as he lashes girls wearing mock DEATH CAMP uniforms and enjoys being whipped until he BLEEDS.

Max Mosley apparently has no plans to resign. Fellow Brits, apparently, understand this sort of thing. His close ally Bernie Ecclestone, the Jewish businessman who controls the commercial side of Formula One, is sticking by his buddy. No report on which role Bernie would like to play in the Auschwitz sado skin flick: "I've known him an awful long time. If somebody had told me this without the evidence I would have found it difficult to believe," he said............

[rodin]

[TonyGosling]

wrong

[Mark Gobell]

Curioser and curioser . . .

[rodin]

[rodin]

Fast Car meme continued

[TonyGosling]

Now a top MI5 geezer has been forced to resign.

[A.L.EX-N.E.TA]

I'd just like to say I'm not related to this guy

[TonyGosling]

Adverse comments about Mosely are disappearing off the web at a rate of knots. Lots and lots of money and lawyers being used to defend this little nasty.

Disturbing stuff this, who makes these films???

Link


And I didn't know Clannad were into the Nazis??
Very weird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBGOTv85wu4

Anyway let's hope Formula 1 boss gets the jackboot right up his posterieur on June 3rd

This blog removed - presumably by old Max's lawyers themselves

[TonyGosling]

Go back to bed Britain, the 'Independent' has figured out how it all transpired.
This guy is not neo-Nazi he's trying to defend the reputation of Formula 1! How much did the PR company that came out with this rubbish get paid?
How did they manage to convince the editor of the Independednt that Max is the victim in all this?

[Desmond]

It's a fantastic bit of spin. Here we have Max caught in a S&M orgy with prostitutes which would normally end up with his career and personal life in tatters. But he has turned this into an issue of whether or not it was Nazi themed and not the other undeniable facts of the case which should have ruined any credibility he had.

[wepmob2000]

For what its worth, any poster on here should exercise some caution when commenting on this topic, I know we should all have free speech, but Mosley is so litigatious its almost untrue.

While I'm not exactly a fan of Mosley, theres probably an element of truth in what he says, in that the whole thing is obviously a set-up. F1 is a multi billion pound vipers nest, and Mosley has trodden on quite a few toes over the years, and his proposed rule changes for 2009 onwards will have some serious financial implications. Its hard to imagine his strange pastimes weren't known about within F1, theres a lot more to this story than meets the eye.

[TonyGosling]

Investigative journalism smashed by High Court.

The public have no right to know if public figures are involved in scandalous activities such as cheating on their wife or other forms of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is becoming 'normalised' by cases such as this.

The press even further muzzled.

Now we can't tell the truth unless Max and similar Nazi spawned a/holes allow us to.

Ridiculous.

[TonyGosling]

Public morality is the victim in the 'deplorable' Mosley case, says former Archbishop

.....Lord Carey said: 'In the past a public figure has known that scandalous and immoral behaviour carries serious consequences for his or her public profile, reputation and job.

'Today it is possible to both have your cake and eat it. But a case can be clearly made for a direct link between private behaviour and public conduct.'

Writing in the News of the World, Lord Carey added: 'If a politician, a judge, a bishop or any public figure cannot keep their promises to a wife, husband, etc, how can they be trusted to honour pledges to their constituencies and the people they serve? '

He said: 'Max Mosley claimed that what consenting adults do with each other behind closed doors - however depraved, brutal and repugnant - is harmless. I think that is deplorable. And I believe most people would ridicule his claim.

'This is a bleak, deeply-flawed "anything goes" philosophy. It is also dangerous and socially undermining, devoid of the basic, decent moral standards that form the very fabric of our society.'
...................
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038998/Public-morality-victim -deplorable-Mosley-case-says-Archbishop.html

[TonyGosling]

Max Mosley a credible authority on privacy matters?

By Ephraim Hardcastle
Daily Mail 03rd February 2010

Orgy-loving Max Mosley spoke on Radio 4's Today programme about John Terry's recent indiscretions. Is Mosley now regarded as a credible authority on privacy matters?

Describing the now-famous London event in which he cavorted with five prostitutes attired in prison-camp uniforms, he says: 'We were having what I would call a party.'

A party!?!

The Times reported: 'Speaking in German and brandishing a leather whip, he beat the women after allowing himself to be subjected to a humiliating inspection for lice and interrogation in chains.'

Certainly not the kind of party which features in the 'Court & Social' columns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1248308/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-M ax-Mosley-credible-authority-privacy-matters.html

[TonyGosling]

Max Mosley loses European privacy case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/10/max-mosley-loses-european- privacy-case
Former Formula One boss fails in bid to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories on their private lives
Mark Sweney - guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 May 2011
Max Mosley has lost his bid to force newspapers to warn people before exposing their private lives. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA
Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss, lost his legal challenge to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives, after a European court ruled on Tuesday that such as system would have a "chilling effect" on the press.
The ruling by the European court of human rights in Strasbourg will mark the last stage in Mosley's campaign for tighter privacy laws following revelations about his sex life in the News of the World.
In 2008 the UK high court awarded him £60,000 damages after ruling that there was no justification for a front-page article and pictures about his meeting with five prostitutes in a London flat.
But Mosley pursued the case to the European court, challenging UK privacy laws that allow publication without giving their targets advanced warning.
The court said on Tuesday that the actions of the News of the World were "open to severe criticism" for publishing not only a print story, but also photographs and video footage obtained through covert recording, "which appears to have been included in the News of the World's coverage merely to titillate the public and increase the embarrassment of the applicant".
However, the court added it has "consistently emphasised the need to look beyond the facts of the [News of the World] case and to consider the broader impact of a pre-notification requirement".
It said such a pre-notification process for newspaper exposés is likely to have a "chilling effect" on the media and that there are "significant doubts" as to the effectiveness of such a system.
"The court is of the view that article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the court concludes that there has been no violation of article 8 of the convention by the absence of such a requirement in domestic law," the Strasbourg ruling stated.
Article 8 of the European convention on human rights guarantees the right to respect for private life.
Mosley responded to the Strasbourg ruling by indicating that he had not given up in his fight to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives. Asked if he had a message for newspaper editors, Mosley said: "It's not over yet."
"I think it's absolutely essential to do everything one can to preserve people's privacy - people's freedom in that sense - and whatever I can do in that regard I am going to do," he told the BBC News channel. "It's a little bit sad there is a gap in the law which should have been closed where newspapers ambush people. It should have been closed. Maybe it will be one day."

[Disco_Destroyer]

Privacy should be upheld unless evidence of wrong doing imo

[TonyGosling]

Privacy rights should be on a sliding scale.
Privacy for the rich and powerful is far less important than privacy for ordinary peple.
That is because the public need to assess the integrity of those that are in positions of public trust, govern or represent them.
That includes their approach to 'family values'.
There is a clear public interest in pro Nazi Formula One family Max Mosely's perverted prostitute & whipping antics being exposed.

[TonyGosling]

In the 1964 General Election, aged 24, Max Mosley was a prospective 'British Union of Fascists' (UM) candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Mosley#Politics

[TonyGosling]

A sordid orgy and why Max Mosley can't be allowed to erase history

By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail

Published: 23:10, 11 September 2013 | Updated: 19:26, 2 July 2014
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2418040/A-sordid-orgy-Max-Mo sley-allowed-erase-history.html

More than any man on earth, the former Formula One racing chief Max Mosley is trying to rewrite the rules that have governed the workings of a free Press for many years, not just in this country but throughout Europe.

His latest assault is on the internet giant Google. He has been trying to persuade a French court that the web engine should be prevented from directing users to pictures of a private orgy that he organised five years ago.

The photographs, involving Mr Mosley and five consensual prostitutes, were originally published by the now defunct News of the World in March 2008. It alleged that Mr Mosley had been engaged in a ‘sick Nazi orgy’.

Mr Mosley has been trying to persuade a French court that Google should be prevented from directing users to pictures of a private orgy that he organised five years ago

Google's response to Mr Mosley is that the application of filters would amount to a form of censorship

To the astonishment of many, three months later Mr Mosley won damages of £60,000 in the High Court from the paper, which was held to have invaded his privacy.

Although German was spoken, uniforms worn and blood was shed by Mosley during the proceedings, and despite heads apparently being inspected as though for lice, the learned judge declared there was no evidence that this had been a Nazi orgy.

Mr Justice Eady ruled that if it had been a Nazi orgy he might have found in favour of the newspaper, since Mr Mosley was a public figure of sorts whose suitability for his high-profile job would have been seriously called into question by such antics. As there was no such proof, the paper was required to pay damages and costs.

Buoyed by this significant (and to my mind irrational) verdict, Mr Mosley set about trying to restrict the activities of the Press. In 2011 he argued in the European Court of Human Rights that ‘prior notification’ should be compulsory for newspapers, to give their targets time to obtain an injunction preventing publication.

(left to right) Woman D, Woman B and Woman C, above and a fourth, Woman A, all denied there was any Nazi element to the orgy at the trial against the News of The World

In other words, a politician or businessman caught doing something wrong could try to persuade a sympathetic judge to kill off the story. Mercifully, the Court had a fit of good sense, and seven of its judges ruled that the right to freedom of expression would be at risk if ‘pre-notification’ was compulsory.

But Mr Mosley was, and is, a man obsessed. One way or another the Press must be curbed. His lawyers have just argued in front of French judges that Google should apply filters so that people would be unable to access photographs of his orgy.

If Mr Mosley had his way, it would not be long before George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four became one step closer to reality

The unwary might suppose that this is perfectly reasonable. If the News of the World was, according to an English judge, guilty of invading Mr Mosley’s privacy when it originally published photographs of his orgy, why should those photographs be available on the net?

Google’s response is that the application of filters would amount to a form of censorship. Access to news sites carrying the pictures, or to innocuous articles containing the images, might be blocked.

In short, the prohibition would extend much further than the photographs.

If anything, Google is understating the case. Should Mr Mosley get his way, the consequence could be the rewriting or erasing of chunks of history.

Whether or not his privacy was invaded, the photographs exist and no one has challenged their authenticity. They amount to a historical record of a sordid event which indubitably took place.

Decent people might wish that it hadn’t, but it did.

These images continue to exist not only on the net but in libraries and private homes. If they were wiped out on the internet — actually, they physically can’t be, but access to them can be denied — they would logically have to be destroyed wherever else they might survive. That sounds like a police state.

If Mr Mosley wins this battle, his next step might be to request that any articles which so much as referred to the pictures of his orgy, or the orgy itself, should also be destroyed, possibly including this one.

Mr Mosley, pictured here with F1 models in Barcelona, faced calls for his resignation when the story was published

And then a thousand other people who want to rewrite their pasts would also apply to have access blocked to discreditable information about them on the internet. In fact, it’s already happening.

The European Union’s highest court is considering whether Spain’s privacy regulator may have overstepped the mark when trying to force Google to remove unflattering search results for numerous citizens — for example, a doctor who claimed that a 1991 news article about a dispute with a patient had damaged his business.

Of course, libellous or untrue articles can, and should, be taken off the net. Google says it has removed hundreds of such pages relating to Mr Mosley following requests from him.

Equally, the search engine should do much more to block access to extreme pornographic websites. But such a welcome move does not involve the rewriting of history to which Mr Mosley’s innovations would lead us.

Steve Coogan, Hugh Grant and Max Mosley give evidence to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions: Though he has denied giving donations to Hacked Off, the pressure group campaigning for tougher regulation of British newspapers, he is a supporter of the organisation

If he had his way, it would not be long before George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four became one step closer to reality. In that book, Winston Smith is employed as a clerk in the Ministry of Truth, rewriting historical documents to match the ever-shifting line of the powers that be.

Do I exaggerate? I don’t think so. Mr Mosley does not like freedom much. At a meeting of a Commons select committee in March he shocked observers. He suggested that access to foreign-based websites could be blocked if they flouted tough new rules that might be introduced by British regulators. That’s what they do in dictatorships such as Iran and China.

It’s surely no accident that Mr Mosley should have started his assault on freedom in France, a country with ferocious privacy laws in which newspapers are traditionally cowed by politicians and the courts.

Until shortly before his death, French newspapers did not dare reveal the truth about the war record, private life and financial misdemeanours of former president Francois Mitterrand.

For example, there was scant discussion of the period during the early years of World War II when he supported Petain’s pro-German Vichy regime, and allegations that he protected Nazi collaborators who helped deport French Jews to death camps were also downplayed. It was only in the months before his death that the Press revealed that Mitterrand had fathered an illegitimate child by a secret mistress.

The French court will deliver its verdict on Mr Mosley’s latest legal challenge, subject to appeal, on October 21. Meanwhile, he is also challenging Google in the German courts. He is aiming for Europe-wide controls on the web engine — and of course he has lots of money.

Though he has denied giving donations to Hacked Off, the pressure group campaigning for tougher regulation of British newspapers, he is a supporter of the organisation and has reportedly financed hacking victims’ lawyers. Will Hacked Off now condemn him for wishing to censor the internet? Of course not. What Mr Mosley yearns for, Hacked Off also wants.

He is a very wealthy man who organised a sordid orgy which the News of the World could have justly described as ‘German-themed’. Nevertheless, he won his case. Meanwhile, that newspaper has been closed down for unconnected reasons.

But that is not enough for him. His war of vengeance against the Press continues. It as if newspapers must suffer because he has been damaged.

He blames everyone except himself. It seems never to occur to Max Mosley that he may have acted unwisely or wrongly. In trying to bury his unwholesome past, this peculiar man would, if he could, cheerfully dismantle all our freedoms.

[TonyGosling]

Max Mosley launches legal bid to scrub his notorious German-themed orgy from history in a chilling attack on Press freedom
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5392939/Max-Mosley-tries-ban-p ress-reporting-orgy.html

German-themed sadomsaochistic orgy involved Mr Mosley and five prostitutes
The 77-year-old is trying to use data protection laws to erase mention of it
He also wants press to stop saying he owns the controversial regulator Impress

By Katherine Rushton For The Daily Mail

Published: 09:06 AEDT, 15 February 2018 | Updated: 12:20 AEDT, 15 February 2018

Max Mosley has launched a chilling new attack on Press freedom, with an extraordinary legal bid to scrub records of his notorious German-themed orgy from history.

The former Formula One boss also wants to restrict reporting on the £3.8million his family trust spends bankrolling the controversial Press regulator Impress.

He has taken legal action against a range of newspapers – the Daily Mail, The Times, The Sun and at least one other national newspaper – demanding they delete any references to his sadomasochistic sex party and never mention it again.

The orgy, which involved Mr Mosley and five prostitutes, was exposed by the News of the World in 2008 and became the subject of one of the biggest privacy trials in history.

However, in a move that could have devastating consequences both for Press freedom and for historical records, Mr Mosley is now using data protection laws to try to force newspapers to erase any mention of it.

Max Mosley (pictured) has taken legal action against a range of newspapers – the Daily Mail, The Times, The Sun and at least one other national newspaper – demanding they delete any references to his German-themed sadomasochistic sex party and never mention it again

And it is not the only extraordinary demand Mr Mosley – the son of wartime fascist leader Oswald Mosley – is making.

He has also insisted that the newspapers stop making references to the fact he bankrolls Impress – the highly controversial, state-approved Press regulator.

Yesterday, MPs warned against data protection laws being used to trample Press freedoms.

The laws were drawn up to tackle misuse of personal information by mail order and credit card companies, but are increasingly being used against the Press.

Conservative MP Bill Cash said: 'The freedom of the Press is paramount and it would be perverse to allow historical records to be removed on the basis of data protection.

'If data protection can be used to wipe out historical records, then the consequences would be dramatic.'

The orgy, which involved Mr Mosley (pictured) and five prostitutes, was exposed by the News of the World in 2008 and became the subject of one of the biggest privacy trials in history

John Whittingdale, a Tory former Culture Secretary, said: 'Data protection is an important principle for the protection of citizens. However, it must not be used to restrict the freedom of the Press.'

Mr Mosley's legal bid uses a combination of previous rulings and data protection laws to try to argue that he should be able to scrub uncomfortable information from the annals of history – and suppress public debate about his relationship with Impress.

If he won, it would set a far-reaching precedent – potentially allowing people to wipe controversial events in their past from the historical record, and even prohibiting references to public judgments of the courts.

It comes as MPs prepare to debate a highly controversial amendment to the new Data Protection Bill, under which any newspaper which is not a member of a state-approved regulator would face paying the costs of any action like Mr Mosley's – even if they won their case.

The only newspaper regulator which has official approval under the Government's royal charter is Impress, which is almost entirely funded by a charity financed by Mr Mosley.

The Daily Mail and the vast majority of other newspapers are regulated by the independent regulator IPSO.

In his action, the multimillionaire racing tycoon claimed that the Daily Mail's owner, Associated Newspapers, had breached data protection 'principles' in 34 articles published since 2013 – including many opinion pieces defending the freedom of the Press.

These principles are designed to stop companies from 'excessive processing' of people's sensitive personal data or from holding on to people's details for longer than necessary, and come with exemptions for journalism that is in the public interest.

However, Mr Mosley argued that the data protection exemptions do not apply to mentions of his orgy, because the judge presiding over his privacy case against the News of the World ruled that the exposé was not in the public interest.

Pictured: Max Mosley, the son of wartime fascist leader Oswald Mosley, at the Silverstone Grand Prix

Mr Mosley famously won £60,000 in damages from the now defunct tabloid.

The judge ruled that the orgy was private because it was not 'Nazi' themed – as the News of the World had claimed.

In his legal action this week, the racing tycoon's lawyers used another branch of data protection law to prevent future reporting of his funding agreement with Impress and to erase it from previous articles.

Mr Mosley has provided £3.8million toward the regulator's running costs, funnelling the money via two charities.

However, his lawyers have demanded that the Mail removes references to the regulator being 'financed', 'funded', 'bankrolled' by, 'financially reliant' on or 'in the pocket' of Mr Mosley.

They claim that it is inaccurate to make such claims, because a judicial review ruled that the elaborate set-up he uses to funnel money to Impress means the regulator can still be independent.

Mr Mosley's legal bid is the latest in a string of attempts he has made to muzzle the Press since the News of the World exposé.

He has donated £500,000 to Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader and culture spokesman. Mr Watson is such a fierce critic of newspapers he has even co-authored a damning book – Dial M For Murdoch – about Rupert Murdoch, the News of the World's former owner.

Mr Mosley has fought an unsuccessful legal campaign to force newspapers to warn people before publishing details about their lives, in order that they can seek an injunction to stop it.

The former Formula One boss (pictured with Hugh Grand and Steve Coogan during the Leveson Inquiry) also wants to restrict reporting on the £3.8million his family trust spends bankrolling the controversial Press regulator Impress

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5392939/Max-Mosley-tries-ban-p ress-reporting-orgy.html

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Max Mosley questioned over racist leaflet
Cathy Newman

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch6tTpX-3HM

https://www.channel4.com/news/max-mosley-questioned-over-racist-leafle t
He won a landmark legal victory against the press almost a decade ago, after a tabloid expose into his sex life. Now Max Mosley is threatening to sue three major newspaper groups, insisting they stop publishing details of that expose. But one of the papers, the Daily Mail, has uncovered details of Mr Mosley’s past involvement in far right politics – details it has shared with Channel 4 News

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Great, a transcript

Max Mosley Confronted By Channel 4 News's Cathy Newman Over 'Racist Leaflet' During Extraordinary Interview
27/02/2018 21:23 GMT
http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/max-mosley-leaflet_uk_5a95b314e4b0 7dffeb6cef2b

'I think that probably is racist, I'll concede that'.
By Jack Sommers
Ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley has denied he is racist during an extraordinary live interview over a leaflet, which allegedly branded “coloured” immigrants a health risk, issued by an election campaign he was involved with.

Mosley, who is the son of British wartime fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, went on Channel 4 News to defend himself after the programme said it had found a 1961 election leaflet that suggested immigrants were bringing disease to the UK and threatening jobs.

The pamphlet says it was “published by” Max Mosley, the agent in the Manchester Moss Side by-election for the candidate of the Union Movement, the post-Second World War fascist party led by Mosley’s father.

Host Cathy Newman repeatedly asked him to explain his claim that the leaflet did not make him racist.


Union Movement candidate Walter Hesketh (left) pictured with his agent Max Mosley in 1961 after the Manchester Moss Side election
One of the more remarkable moments was when, after several minutes of the tense exchange, Mosley’s phone went off.

“Please take your call afterwards,” Newman said, before continuing to ask why he would not apologise to immigrants in the constituency where the election took place.

At the time, Manchester Moss Side was home to a large community of immigrants from the Caribbean.

The leaflet, put out by Union Movement candidate Mark Heskreth, allegedly called for immigrants to be sent back to their country of birth.

It also said they were bringing “tuberculosis, VD and other terrible diseases like leprosy” and “threatening your children’s health”, according to what Newman quoted to Mosley.

She asked Mosley, who left politics shortly after the by-election, whether he believed immigrants should be sent home.

Mosley said this was “academic” because “we are 50 years on”.

“It’s no longer a possible question. I should remind you of this. This was in 1961. I ceased to have any involvement ― I ceased to have any involvement in my father’s politics,” he said.

In an extraordinary exchange, Newman forced Mosley to admit the statements in the leaflet were racist - but he refused to apologise.

Newman: Did you believe at the time that immigrants brought disease to the UK?

Mosley: I’ve no reason to believe that at all, then or now.

Newman: Would you admit those statements are racist?

Mosley: I don’t know about racist. They are deeply offensive.

Newman: You do not think it is racist to say that immigrants bring disease to the UK?

Mosley: They might be an immigrant from somewhere like Canada, it’s nothing to do with race...

Newman: This was particularly about coloured people. ‘Coloured immigration threatens your children’s health’ is what it says.

Mosley: It doesn’t say coloured people bring leprosy.

Newman: This is a direct quote from the leaflet: ‘Coloured immigration threatens your children’s health’. Are you saying that isn’t racist?

Mosley: That probably is racist. I will concede that completely.

Newman: Would you issue an apology to the West Indians in Manchester who must have been absolutely terrified?

Mosley: I have no reason to apologise to anyone. (Mosley said this as he reached into his pocket to check his phone)

Newman: Please take your call afterwards. You are not apologising to anyone for statements you admit are racist?

Mosley: This was a statement in a leaflet, which I’m not even sure was genuine, which would never reflect my view then or now. Because I simply wouldn’t dream of insulting people.

Newman: A Lot of people might be shocked that you can’t apologise for a leaflet, that has your name on the bottom, which makes statements you now admit are racist.

Mosley: If that leaflet is shown to be genuine, then I would certainly say it should not have been given.

The segment came ahead of a Daily Mail story, to be splashed on the front page of Wednesday’s paper, which alleges Mosley lied about the leaflet under cross-examination during his 2008 privacy case against the now-defunct tabloid News Of The World.

Newman asked Mosley whether he lied under oath. He said: “That’s a very offensive suggestion which you shouldn’t make.”

“They asked me in the trial whether the leaflet existed. I said, which was absolutely true, that it was nonsense. That was my recollection. It still is my recollection. I’m not even sure it is genuine. If it is, it doesn’t reflect my views today. This is a red herring put out by the Daily Mail,” he said.

Jack Sommers Assistant News Editor, HuffPost UK

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Great, a transcript

Max Mosley Confronted By Channel 4 News's Cathy Newman Over 'Racist Leaflet' During Extraordinary Interview
27/02/2018 21:23 GMT
http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/max-mosley-leaflet_uk_5a95b314e4b0 7dffeb6cef2b

'I think that probably is racist, I'll concede that'.
By Jack Sommers
Ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley has denied he is racist during an extraordinary live interview over a leaflet, which allegedly branded “coloured” immigrants a health risk, issued by an election campaign he was involved with.

Mosley, who is the son of British wartime fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, went on Channel 4 News to defend himself after the programme said it had found a 1961 election leaflet that suggested immigrants were bringing disease to the UK and threatening jobs.

The pamphlet says it was “published by” Max Mosley, the agent in the Manchester Moss Side by-election for the candidate of the Union Movement, the post-Second World War fascist party led by Mosley’s father.

Host Cathy Newman repeatedly asked him to explain his claim that the leaflet did not make him racist.

One of the more remarkable moments was when, after several minutes of the tense exchange, Mosley’s phone went off.

“Please take your call afterwards,” Newman said, before continuing to ask why he would not apologise to immigrants in the constituency where the election took place.

At the time, Manchester Moss Side was home to a large community of immigrants from the Caribbean.

The leaflet, put out by Union Movement candidate Mark Heskreth, allegedly called for immigrants to be sent back to their country of birth.

It also said they were bringing “tuberculosis, VD and other terrible diseases like leprosy” and “threatening your children’s health”, according to what Newman quoted to Mosley.

She asked Mosley, who left politics shortly after the by-election, whether he believed immigrants should be sent home.

Mosley said this was “academic” because “we are 50 years on”.

“It’s no longer a possible question. I should remind you of this. This was in 1961. I ceased to have any involvement ― I ceased to have any involvement in my father’s politics,” he said.

In an extraordinary exchange, Newman forced Mosley to admit the statements in the leaflet were racist - but he refused to apologise.

Newman: Did you believe at the time that immigrants brought disease to the UK?

Mosley: I’ve no reason to believe that at all, then or now.

Newman: Would you admit those statements are racist?

Mosley: I don’t know about racist. They are deeply offensive.

Newman: You do not think it is racist to say that immigrants bring disease to the UK?

Mosley: They might be an immigrant from somewhere like Canada, it’s nothing to do with race...

Newman: This was particularly about coloured people. ‘Coloured immigration threatens your children’s health’ is what it says.

Mosley: It doesn’t say coloured people bring leprosy.

Newman: This is a direct quote from the leaflet: ‘Coloured immigration threatens your children’s health’. Are you saying that isn’t racist?

Mosley: That probably is racist. I will concede that completely.

Newman: Would you issue an apology to the West Indians in Manchester who must have been absolutely terrified?

Mosley: I have no reason to apologise to anyone. (Mosley said this as he reached into his pocket to check his phone)

Newman: Please take your call afterwards. You are not apologising to anyone for statements you admit are racist?

Mosley: This was a statement in a leaflet, which I’m not even sure was genuine, which would never reflect my view then or now. Because I simply wouldn’t dream of insulting people.

Newman: A Lot of people might be shocked that you can’t apologise for a leaflet, that has your name on the bottom, which makes statements you now admit are racist.

Mosley: If that leaflet is shown to be genuine, then I would certainly say it should not have been given.

The segment came ahead of a Daily Mail story, to be splashed on the front page of Wednesday’s paper, which alleges Mosley lied about the leaflet under cross-examination during his 2008 privacy case against the now-defunct tabloid News Of The World.

Newman asked Mosley whether he lied under oath. He said: “That’s a very offensive suggestion which you shouldn’t make.”

“They asked me in the trial whether the leaflet existed. I said, which was absolutely true, that it was nonsense. That was my recollection. It still is my recollection. I’m not even sure it is genuine. If it is, it doesn’t reflect my views today. This is a red herring put out by the Daily Mail,” he said.

Jack Sommers Assistant News Editor, HuffPost UK