Birmingham,The Stirrer, Black Country

news that matters, campaigns that count

for Birmingham, the Black Country and beyond

Mick Temple’s Blog

OH BONDAGE – UP YOURS

11-07-2008

handcuffs

The Max Mosley court case has Mick Temple condemning tabloid intrusion in the bedroom – even if your preference is for spanking and bondage.

Is it in the public interest to expose Max Mosley’s enjoyment (if that’s the word) of sado-masochistic sex games with other consenting adults?

I will be careful to avoid any possible contempt of court in this article. Matters of law are for the judge to decide, and because it is a judge and not a jury sitting the chances of me committing contempt are hopefully non-existent.

But does anyone believe that tabloid editors have the ‘public interest’ as their highest priority when faced with a sensational story involving expensive hookers, pervy sex and the son of Britain’s best known fascist (not counting Edward VIII)?

Of course not – the belief that this was a ‘Nazi sex orgy’ would have had any newspaper man or woman salivating. Perhaps a few rudimentary checks might have avoided this current court case – for example, a prudent editor might have had someone translate the German exchanges to check for Nazi references.

If there was a Nazi element, there might well be a public interest justification. But let’s look at the wider picture.

Are your sexual preferences your own affair, even if you are a public figure - which Mosley undeniably is? Well, as always, it depends.

First, what is a ‘public figure’? Elton John is one, but does that mean he has no right to privacy? Well, I think we all know what Elton gets up to and we don’t need the Sun to tell us ‘Elton takes David up the aisle’ (a genuine headline, lest you think I’ve come over all homophobic).

Elton has never pontificated on what the rest of us should be doing in the privacy of our own bedrooms and all the money he has derives from his own considerable talents. He deserves his privacy.

For me, the only time a public figure can be subject to the nation’s prurience is when that person is in a position of public authority.

That does not necessarily mean solely elected figures. Heads of Quangos or members of the House of Lords must ensure their private activities don’t conflict with their public responsibilities.

Those in elected office standing on certain platforms whose private life fails to match their public statements have no defence. Family values and back to basics, anyone? Otherwise, their private sex lives are their own business, regardless of whether they are your MP or not.

Back to Max.

Max Mosley holds a position of considerable authority in a sport which transcends national boundaries and in which hints of fascist sympathies would be unacceptable to many of his ‘constituents’ in the motor-racing community. He clearly realises this.

Otherwise, whether his preference is for the missionary position, golden showers, or prison-punishment scenarios, it’s his own affair.

DISCUSS THIS ON THE STIRRER FORUM - BUT PLEASE STICK TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, NOT THE SPECIFICS OF THE MOSLEY COURT CASE. TA.
Google

The Stirrer Forum

The Stirrer home

valid xhtml

©2006 - 2009 The Stirrer