The behavioural economics of Max Mosley

Is Max Mosley's behaviour simply a private act that has no place in a newspaper? Is it reasonable that he should be held to account for his sexual kinks?

Matthew Syed, in an excellent piece for today's Times, thinks his act was private and that nobody would look good if their sexual fantasies were printed in the paper.

I can't agree with him.

Let me use a slightly odd parallel taken from a new book on behavioural economics - Predictably Irrational by MIT's Professor Dan Ariely. Thanksgiving dinner at your mother-in-law's place.

Ariely tells the tale of the perfect dinner, just right, delicious, sociable. And then, just as it finishes, you get out your wallet and offer your wife's mum $300. Tell you what Mom, let's make it $400.

You've crossed the line. Delivered a mortal insult. We draw quite a thick line between social interactions and market ones.

Ariely uses another example. A study conducted in an Israeli nursery decided to punish parents for collecting their children late. They would be fined £10. But once the fine was introduced, guess what happened to lateness? It went up. Once the social obligation (turn up on time) had been replaced by a market transaction (Late? That will be £10 please) attitudes changed.

What Max Mosley did when he decided to pay prostitutes to engage in sado-masochistic games is to take a social transaction and make it a market transaction. This changed its nature and the attitude he can expect others to take to it.

The fact that this was a market transaction means, among other things, that he cannot expect it to be treated as a normal private social act.

Matthew argues that he didn't mean anyone to take offence because he meant his behaviour to remain private. But if you are paying five people to join you in an activity it has already ceased to be completely private.

Comments

[Graeme Archer]

Nonsense. Pay your mother-in-law what you like for dinner, it's irrelevant to the horrid practice of tabloids invading the privacy of consenting adults in order to titilate their readers with manufactured prurience.

[Chris Clark]

I suppose Mosely might also have entered into a market transaction with a psychiatrist. Would this similarly grant your disreputable journos the right to spy on proceedings and publish the results? I thnk not.

[Marc]

This seems to me to be rather fuzzy thinking.

Does the fact that a distinction can be drawn between a market transaction and a social one necessarily impact the privacy of that transaction?

[GK]

He should have taken up golf.

[graham fudger]

I am of the opinion that one's sexual preferences should be maintained in the private domain. But a preference and an act are two very different things. When a public figure who is able to wield great power gives in to such blatant excess it becomes a matter of public interest by default, whilst the precise details of Max's personal tastes are almost irrelevant...

[Andrew]

I think you have made a false distinction; there is no such clear divide between 'social actions' and 'market transactions'. You are implying that if Max Mosley had found 5 girls in a bar who wanted to act out sexual fantasies with him for free, then he would have been entitled to his privacy. But what if he'd shared a bottle of champagne with these girls? What if he flew them out to Rome with him and paid for the hotel suite? What if he bought them all expensive clothes to thank them instead of paying them? In these cases would it be market, or social? Even if he'd found girls willing to do it with him for free, they'd presumably be doing it for their own pleasure too. And, as we have seen in Mosley's willingness to pay for such a pleasure, it's possible to place a monetary value on it.

People are not inanimate objects; if they engage in a social activity, they usually get some benefit out of it, even if that benefit is just the enjoyment of having company or talking to friends. And since it's possible for someone to put a monetary value on that benefit, it's possible to turn any 'social action' into a 'market transaction'. There is no clear-cut distinction between them, and thus there is no justification for saying Max Mosley forfeited his right to privacy when he got his wallet out.

[Arne]

Applied transerection costs economic...

[elba]

Ups, don't open that door!
May I propone to all prostitutes keep all their records and post it in,for example, The Times?
But only in the transactions section, of course!

[Daniel Bowen]

The example of a thanksgiving dinner is a useful one, but looking at the same example, it is impossible to ignore the fact that this dinner, and many other private social transactions also require market transactions. Buying a turkey from the grocer does not change thanksgiving dinner into a public matter.

When a home-cooked meal is presented to us, we may place additional value on the fact that a friend or relative put especial personal care into it, but it would it would not become socially acceptable to offer one's in-laws money after dinner because they had hired a caterer to prepare the meal.

It is worth noting that many other areas in our lives where we would insist on privacy, such as health care, also require market transactions and the services of outsiders.

There is a very good argument to be made for the idea that Max Mosley should not have been hired in the first place, given his own past political activities and associations, which indeed, so far as I know, he has never repudiated, but it is also quite obvious that Mosley's notorious orgy was not intended as a public act.

Frankly, I was rather conflicted about writing this comment because I despise Mosley and would be enthusiastic about his removal for any reason, but a larger point is at issue. Economic transactions can reach into every part of life, and if economics removes all expectations of privacy, then we will have none.

[trevor greenwood]

The arrogance of Mr. Mosely is clearly again outlined in his comments re the war following BMW and Mercedes press releases on this matter. If the FIA allow him to continue as President they will reduce the credability of this organisation and shoot themselves in the foot. He surely has to go. Pity he did not take the high road and resign.

[Emma]

He should have paid the prostitutes more and made them sign a confidentiality agreement. They're working women they've go to MAXimise their whooping earnings whichever way they can!

[pazz]

I would have thought that anything a person does behind closed doors would be a private action providing they aren't breaking the law.
If one of the participating individual says something, then thats public domain.....nought can be done about that....

[Teesbridge]

Hang on, Danny. If I buy some medication for a personal ailment - say athlete's foot or piles - does that market transaction (money having changed hands) make my health a matter for journos? ("...well if you didn't want the nation to know you suffered from piles you shouldn't have gone to the Chemist's, Sir...")

I do wonder if our right-on press would have been quite so upset if the (ahem) ladies had dressed as members of the Red Army.

That said, the guy seems pretty repellent and I guess this is an opportunity to depose him that few seem willing to resist.

[Richard Young]

Pointless argument: Mosley's mistake was getting caught, not commissioning an orgy. He's a well-remunerated, very public figure at the head of a sporting federation - he has to consider appearances, that comes with the job. I can well imagine a politician could happily legislate while maintaining a moderate cocaine habit, for example (and I'd bet a fair few do). But if it became known, they'd have to resign, whether or not they had their own dealer or just blagged lines off their mates...

[Margarita]

I think that the statement that if you engage five people in an activity such activity ceases to be private is radically absurd. I am not trying to justify his behaviour but I don't think it fair that he should be exposed publicly like this.

[I. Kumma London]

M.Mosley went to a leagal place to have some leagal sex, he paid for it and it all should have remained a private matter between him and the establishment.But because he was M.M. the act was filmed and the film sold to the News of the World -and suddenly M.Mosley is the most repulsive man of the week. Everybody seems to want to see him punished, the humiliation is not punishment enough - he must also lose his job.

In the meantime the real villains, the people who made the film, the people who sold it to the News of the World, go unpunished.

Is this the Land of the Fair?

[andy p]

he indulged in an orgy (with five strangers?) just after being told - according to him - that there was an international conspiracy out to get him... one should really ask oneself if he really wanted to be found out

[cathy hansen]

Equating Mosley's actions with a private transaction with a shrink is a crock. Are psychiatrists PAID 5 to a pack to be beaten and humiliated in sex orgies?
This is defined as "harmless fantasy"?
Do the wives & children of Johns consider it "harmless fun" when their husbands and fathers risk being outed with the truth?
Do the wives/girlfriends who become infected with STDs (example: cervical cancer), or the millions of women and their children who are dying worldwide of AIDs because husbands frequent prostitutes--consider the health risks "harmless fun and fantasy"? In truth, the countries heavily into prostitution (Thailand/Netherlands) are the main source transit & destination for millions of children and young women in bondage sold to be trafficked for the purposes of commercial sex exploitation for elite's like Mosley. Still harmless "fantasy"? Answer:
Harmless--only if it's not Max Mosley's or Seyd's young daughter who is being used like throw away garbage. For the record Nevada--the only state in the USA where sex for cash is legal--has the highest rate per capita of rape against women and teen pregnancy in the nation. Nevada's crime ranking across the board offer the highest odds of a crime against families. Prostitution and it's consequences are NOT fantasy.

[What the ???]

As far as I am aware Mosley undertake this market transaction in private, he did not advertise for these services in the public domain, thus it is still a private affair irrespective of the market forces at work. Further, if he had not allegedly undertaken to enact a politically sensitive topic, I doubt anybody would give two hoots. The political legacy of his father has been used to berate Mosley, thus confusing two separate issues. I hope he sues and wins for breach of privacy even though I disapprove of his alleged actions.

[chris bannister]

The thanksgiving parallel is misleading. One assumes that Mosley did not pull out his wallet at the end of the party and patronisingly flash a few million lire about. More likely the 'fee' was agreed before hand or understood to be similar to that of previous occasions.. if there where any. So no social faux pas there.

On a completely different subject of course, I've often wondered what Max was doing on the weekend of the F1 tyre debacle at Indianapolis.

However, back on track, I think what is legal and private stays private.. until it becomes public. That's when you pay for it!

[CLS]

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that people's financial transactions ought to be public business. I say mind your own business and leave other people's business alone. I mean their private life for sure, but also their economic life.

You no more have the right to control how people spend their money than you do in deciding their religious values, their sexual practices or anything. MYOB applies to the private and the economic spheres.

[thomas]

Well you've almost got a hook on this fish, but not quite.

Paying for a Thanksgiving meal might annoy the in-laws, but it doesn't transgress acceptability - that is unless you are making a moral judgement about economic transactions in the first place (in fact the custom of gift-giving follows many deformalised conventions of economic exchange).

Mosley's mistake lies not in the fact that he made an economic transaction (for there would be no reason to judge him on that alone), but that he undertoook criminal activity by soliciting prostitutes (UK law) and engaging in Nazi rituals (German, Austrian, French law).

As head of an international organisation which operates in each of these areas it's not surprising that he should come in for criticism after failing to comply with their normal legal expectations that apply universally in those jurisdictions.

Or is it a case of one law for him, a whole lot of others for us?

[Ben Styles]

Max is a public figure. He makes very important, and almost always controversial decisions. He makes decisions that impact people that live in other cultures, that would frown much more heavily on his sexual activity the average Westerner. How could a Saudi Prince now rightfully shake hands with this man? Impossible. He has a responsibility to the organisations that his decisions impact to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars to act appropriately. He has not acted appropriately. Whilst I agree it is terrible that the tabloids act in such a way, he SHOULD know that his actions will always be under scrutiny. Anyone is such a public office has the same obligations. He must resign.

[A BBC 606 F1 Interloper]

'The district judge heard that Murraku, who was of previous good character, had said he could pay any fine the court imposed.'

"And saying you can 'pay any fine' does not curry favour."

That example seems analogous to the Israeli school fining parents for late collection of their kids.

[Chris]

What's with all this privacy paranoia? Behaviour that is unacceptable remains unacceptable, whether it's conducted in private or public. This applies doubly to figures who hold public office and have the power - as the FIA does - to sanction the conduct of others. Rule No.1 - If you don't want to see it on the front page of the newspapers, don't do it!

[myself]

Is he guiltier than BMW and Siemens (and don’t know Mercedes) that used slaves form the concentration camp? He made dirty sex yes, but sex is a lighter sin compared to slavery. Before a German company speaks against Nazism and their ritual should wash his mouth several times before and ask if the compensation paid is enough to become virgin again.

[Peter Wigglesworth]

It is worrying that those in the position of print ideas into the public domain can think so deviantly.

The only area where the case in hand transgresses privacy is in the issue of a marriage or relationship. If a partner does not know about the activities then they are being lied to, deceit is 'directed' at someone, which leaves the activities less than entirely private.

[Reba Shep]

Surely he was paying for privacy as well?
Hopefully he still has his receipt and can maybe get a refund

[David Knight]

What a ridiculous article...crawl back under your stone where you belong.

[Alex]

Whilst there is some validity in the argument that a person's private life should be just that, can any of you putting forward that point honestly dismiss the facts here.

The son of the former leader of the British equivalent of the Nazi party, who was his Hitler supporting Father's favourite has engaged in a sexual mock up of events which in their original genuine context lead the the mass slaughter of millions of people. We all have fantasies, but most of them don't link up with the genocides of the past.

Do you really think that's okay? Whether his private life is private, given he's a public figure, by his own choice of job, I think it's a good thing that we have all learned exactly what kind of man he is.

[graham burrill]

If it was meant to be private then it should be private [barring anything illegal ]. Common sense however, would indicate a fair chance of one participant selling this very spicy story where a celebrity is concerned.
What is amazing to me is the gentleman in question apparently expecting his associates in business to ignore the whole thing and continue as before.
In all businesses of that size and note ,surely the issue of "bringing the firm into disrepute " might be raised

[Julian Cox]

Surely the distinction between what is regarded as private and that which is public depends to some exent on whether the private actions of a person are rendered public because that individual's private status is innately more public than it is perceived to be private.

The question therefore arises, Does Max Mosley's role as a public figure over-ride that of his status as a private individual; or, more specifically, is the presidency of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile sufficient to nullify his private status for the wider - and in this instance presumably global - public?

Where the moral question comes into play is surely one of personal integrity. Personal integrity is, however, not merely in the private domain of the dictates of one's conscience, for all actions committed by the private individual at some point have a bearing on one's public persona and society at large - even in the smallest degree.

The answer to this seeming dichotome is thus whether Max Mosley considers being president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile worthy of his integrity.

This dillema is best summed up by Queen Mary's comment to the then King Edward VIII who complained to her that he had to go out "kinging" that afternoon. She replied that a king was what one IS, not what one DOES.

King Edward, of course, abdicated.

[Seasider]

What you do in your own home with a consenting partner is your business - and theirs. If they choose to blab about it they don't look good either, and besides no-one but the media is interested.

So I think Daniel is right. It was the fact that he paid people to indulge him which is so distasteful - and made him vulnerable to exposure.

An arrogant and rather stupid man, obviously, and not fit to hold any public position.

[Kenneth]

Got to agree with Alex, there are two issues - the sex and the recreation of the holocost for sexual gratification by the son of a famous Nazi sympathiser, who stood for election with one of his father's parties.
If it was all about sex, the behavioural economics argument may have some virtue, man cheats on wife is not particularly newsworth. What has incensed people, is not this, but the distrubing nature of the sex, and for that, he must go.

On another note, can I note that McLaren were proven to be cheats, had a major feud with Mosely, then hired a prominent magazine editor (Matt Bishop, ex-F1 Racing) as PR guru and within a few months a newpaper story about Mosely's sex life could bring him down. Of course it could be coincidence, but it is an aspect many outside F1 appear to have ignored.

[Tom P]

I don't think the "parallel" with Ariely's examples works at all. His point is that introducing money into a social relationship can have a major effect. It is offensive in one case, and changes behaviour for the worse in another.

A real parallel therefore would be if Mosley would have to have arranged to have his orgy with willing participants, and then offered to pay them. But in reality the nature of the relationship in Mosley's case - he paid for sex - did not change. Whether we have a problem with that or not is a personal question, it has nothing to do with behavioural economics as far as I can see.

Ariely's point is about the change brought about by introducing money into an existing state of affairs, not that if you pay for something you can get for free that makes it 'bad'. So I can't see how you can extrapolate from this, as the Finkster does, that paying for sex means that you are fair game for the media.

[G Fehr]

"When a public figure who is able to wield great power gives in to such blatant excess it becomes a matter of public interest by default"

I do think this comment is far more on the mark than the economic argument. Mosley did something stupid, involving at least five other people, and apparently not for the first time (from the scrap of video I have seen of him in the street, he certainly had no trouble locating the gate nor fiddling with the latch).

It was stupid not because he is stupid (which he clearly is not) but because the arrogance of power and wealth had him believing he would never be caught out.

It's a very old tune. You forget about not only your public role, but your public status as well. You think you are invincible, but in truth you are even more vulnerable than any ordinary duffer, and rightly so.

[Varun]

A poor poor article. I would expect my university professors to give me a dismissive mark for such a piece.

Mr. Finklestein begins telling us how he will dismantle Mr. Syeds argument for individual privacy. However throughout the article he avoids the task and simply states at the end that 5 people involved in any activity is enough for it to be considered a public activity.

This is a strange and absurd claim. Either Mr. Finklestein has an agenda, or simply wrote this with a lack of concentration.

[Ben]

Max is a largely arrogant and repellent bloke who (like many people in power - Eliot Spitzer anybody) can't resist paying for it (and perhaps feels its safer than risking social sex with koiss and tell girls, guess he knows better now). Anyway, he's been caught and we're all loving it. On another note, to the lady rattling on about nevada a) gambling - attracts a lot of fairly nasty people so that's going to effect the crime figures methinks and b) because its the only state to offer prostitution, guess what, lots of undesirables. The only way to stamp out trafficking etc is to legalise and control it. to the guy commenting about Mosley no longer being able to shake the hand of Saudi princes. Ha ha. Only 'cause he got caught. The only reason they would be shocked is 'cause he had a mere five girls.

[Mike Beaudro]

Max Moseley is no different to any other human being who has been caught in any dubious act, whether paid for, or not. He has made a mistake, been found out and is not happy about it. Does this mean I can go home and tell my wife that I haven't been unfaithful because I paid for sex? I think not, if you are caught, you pay the price whether it be for a criminal, antisocial, or paid transaction, especially if you are a public figure. How many times has he not been caught out?

[Margaret]

I think the analogy about the dinner would be more apposite if he had asked his wife to tie him up and beat him senseless, and then left £500 on her side of the bed.

[e skelton]

Maybe we in Wales could pay girls to dress up as Beaker People? After all those pre-Celtics had it coming!

[thomas]

Whether or not Mosley gets to keep his job depends upon him still meeting the stipulations in his employment contract over any criminal records he has - after he has been prosecuted for breaking the laws the NOTW exposed him as breaking.
Mosley ought to be suspended pending further investigation into his criminal activities and may resign to restore some dignity if his conscience cannot bear the smeared accusations or the guilt.

[AKSIVA]

Shouldnt we all look at issues that really matter...........

Is this worth all this time and effort........

The world would be a better place if the media dedicate more space to issues like poverty, starvation and climate change than to the sexual preferences of one person ......

[Richard]

Well done, you've used some clever words and a plugged a new book.

How did you take the quantum leap from market and social transactions to privacy?

I'm wary that I can only come back at you with over the top counter examples but you don't seem to grasp privacy.

My definition of privacy is control over the disclosure of personal information. Whilst not perfect it does the job well enough. For example my bank details are private because I control who I give them to. I do give them to my bank manager though.

Also a witty come back (maybe). Can we all participate in insider trader? I'd like to sign up first please.

[Dan in New Jersey]

Max Mosley has created a whole bunch of problems with a number of constituencies:

* Pictures of a naked man engaging in sex offend Muslim sensibilities: This is why we used these interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq to good effect. Along these lines, it will be interesting to see the welcome he receives in Malaysia and Turkey;

* Just as your Prince Harry was taken to the woodshed for wearing a nazi costume, there are many people throughout the world -- But not that many guys posting here -- that are deeply offended by it, just as they would be offended if Mosley's S&M fantasy involved a faked lynching;

* Mosley's continued presence as the head of the FIA now places the return of Formula 1 racing to Indy in grave jeopardy, as pressure from the community will be brought to bear on Tony George to not deal with such a despicable man. Daniel Finkelstein writes about the economics of Mosley's actions, but the $30 million sanction fee to bring the F1 circus to town is real money;

* In addition, Mosley was just like the perp who holds up a 7-11: Both were caught committing a crime while being videotaped. Because of this, he just may not be allowed into the United States by Homeland Security -- Just as Amy Winehouse had her visa application rejected when she was going to sing at the Grammy's.

Over the years as the head of the FIA, Mosley has made a lot of enemies in racing, but the damage has been confined to open wheel racing. Now, he's brought the entire sport into disrepute with the general public, and for this he has to go.

[J.Turner]

I think that Mr. Finkelstein has a valid point. If he had enjoyed his orgy with like-minded participants, he would (perhaps) have a greater claim to privacy.

However, many large organisations have a morals clause in the contracts of their employees,especially top employees. If the FIA don't have one now, they probably soon will.

For years I have wondered how Mosley managed to wield dictatorial powers over his organisation. It now seems that it was his manifest genetic destiny to do so. His actions are repellant, and his privacy defence is futile. The horses have bolted; why bother trying to shut the barn door?

In what other sporting organisatin would the top man get away with this? The FA? The RFU? The American Baseball Commissioner? Can you even imagine a humble football player not walking the plank? I smell elitism - one rule for the oiks, one rule for the ruling classes.

[Ian]

What tripe. Any transaction involves two (at least) parties. Mosley found a number of individuals who were willing to provide him with a service in exchange for a financial reward. The trasnsaction took place. As far as I can tell nobody came to any physical harm. As far as I can tell those taking part did so without coersion. As far as I can tell nobody not directly involved in the transaction was directly affected by it. What interest, therefore, is it of yours or mine.

And the thanksgiving dinner example is totally fatuous. It would indeed be socially inept to turn the transaction of being invited to a meal as part of a social interaction into a commercial interaction. But it would not be so if the original basis of the transaction was an invitation to dine at a restaurant and share the cost because the second is a commercially based transaction from the outset - like Mosley and his hookers.

It is also fascinating to see the point of the nursery anecdote so pointedly ignored. The reason that lateness went up was that the price of lateness had changed. It had changed from a potentially costly, "They might refuse to take my child in the future" to an identifiably cheap £10. So not only had the type of price changed but the cost of the price had changed.

[rick rowson]

This is no one elses business if mosely was gay this scandal would not happen this bias against freedom of action.

[Ian Johnson]

I am afraid that your logic seems flawed.

Having been a lawyer in years past, does it follow that lawyer-client privilege - a cornerstone of many of the world's legal systems - should cease to be, merely because of a financial relationship between client and service provider?

Many other examples are easily found, such as consultant-client relationships where confidentiality, whether written or merely implied by the nature of the relationship, is not removed just because the transaction forms part of commerce.

One may not at all like Mr Mosley nor his parentage - nor approve of the nature of what took place during the filmed liaison - but none of that justifies removing his right to privacy. The man likely needs professional attention from psychotherapy, not from tabloid press.

A final point - is it really plausible that the publication in question published primarily on 'moral' grounds, or rather on economic ones?

[Chris]

To answer Chris Clark, 'transaction with a psychiatrist' is different to paying 5 hooker to perdorm kinky act. Psychiatry has ethical conduct while prostitution has none of those. As long as transaction occur, there's no privacy attached to it!

Whether it invasion of privacy or not, Mosley sick & perversion has been exposed. He can sue anyone he likes but his morality & credibility is damaged! Even the President of US has to answer to the public!

[G Fehr]

Tsk. Bad form, old boy.

[Laura]

I am no fan of MM but I do not believe it was a ‘Nazi-themed’ five hours of sexual frolicking.

I think the NOTW is no better than a colony of rats for doing what they did. I wonder how Rupert Murdoch would like it if his private fantasies were for laid bare for public consumption.

People have committed suicide as a result of that newspaper 'moralising' in people's lives...

However MM really is living up to his sobriquet 'Mad Max'. Being a public figure and engaging in such pursuits left him open to blackmail or being caught on camera for his perversions. I mean these girls were German and English – does he think they can’t read the newspapers or watch TV?

For that weakness alone he must be punishment (now don't get excited Max) and that means he will loose his job.

He is a Barrister and has a degree in physics. He must disprove the Nazi theory and make some sort of Freudian plea that this was his way of coming to terms with the memory of being incarcerated in Holloway prison when he was a baby.

Since his sexual excapade was ‘prison-themed’ he can claim he was only acting out some sort of Oedipus complex. (Freud also believed that the unsuccessful resolution of the Oedipus complex could result in neurosis, which I think MM is suffering from now).

However (and bear in mind I am a woman) I think 5 hours of sexual games at the age of 67 years is some feat!

[Haydn in Bangkok]

Nothing, that I can see, is against the law. So he likes to dress up and play sex games. This is something that millions of people have done. Admittedly not all of us take it to such an extreme however there are things we have each done what we would not like to share with the world at large. Neither should we, regardless of our station in life.

[e skelton]

Has any liberal icon ever been removed from the pantheon of the left for using prostitutes? Perhaps they were only helping proletarian girls to gain financial independence rather than degrading them or encouraging human trafficking.

[David Gwilliam]

Surely it is the journalists involved who should lose their job

[Harold]

gauche - lacking ease or grace; unsophisticated

If one offers to help defray the cost of the dinner in private it's quite generous and acceptable, but pulling out a checkbook at the dinner table as implied is crass, self-aggrandizing, and totally without class.

As are the actions of Mosely, if true, whether private or public

[Julia Iskandar]

It's no surprise, whether it was meant to be kept secret or not: From Hitler onwards, lots of Nazis, neo-Nazis and other extreme-rightwingers were perverts of the sado-masochistic kind. When they're outed, they only get what they deserve. And they're not even the only ones who get off on cruelty, and then play the victims, adding insult to injury. Best not to touch them with a bargepole, just name and shame them.

[Porl]

Without the Nazi connotations this would never have made the papers. I saw no swastika in the photos, the girls were wearing leather fetish wear -- not Nazi uniforms. He was apparently talking in German because some of the girls were German. Apart from the News of the Worlds own assertions that this was a "Nazi-style" orgy I have seen no signs of that in the published pictures --- and you can be sure that if there were Nazi uniforms and swastikas, we would have seen those photos. Use your eyes people -- since when did you believe everything you read in the News of the World? Furthermore, Finkelstein's argument is so obviously daft it doesn't bear commenting on.

[Peter Harris]

What he does in private is not relevant, however, it is not private anymore. Since it is not private now whatever the legal outcome of the NOTW action, what does not change is that he represents the body that governs F1 and takes an ethical stance on many issues. Simply, there is a conflict of interests since he cannot be taken seriously with regard to any statement of ethics from no on. How would it look now were he to comment on the spying scandal ...

[thomas]

Should we compare thee to Eliot Spitzer?

[Nicholas Storey]

Are you not overlooking the most obvious point here? Despite the fact that these 5 women were paid £100 an hour each, they decided to make extra money by betraying what was plainly meant to be a confidential transaction (whether social or commercial seems to make little difference). The newspaper in question, wishing to make extra sales last week, balanced the amount demanded by the women with their own expected extra profit and struck a deal, to manufacture prurience (as well put above) and peddle it to its goggle-eyed, illiterate readers who flick between pages displaying oceans of space sold to peddlers of sexual services, young girls (often sporting manufactured, plastic-stuffed breasts) - and tales like this of the 'great and the good' caught with their pants down. Maybe these stories are, in fact, just to arouse and so induce people to hire the services which this paper advertizes. It is true that Britain is not the place that it once was .... and I, for one, regret that. However, the taste for good old British hypocrisy remains as stable as ever.
NJS

[Dimitris Valatsas]

The argument is valid, but irrelevant to the question. Mr Mosley might have not engaged in a private, social interaction by paying for sex, and instead turned it into a market transaction, but that that means nothing in moral terms.
Mr. Mosley (or anyone else, for that matter), is under no categorical imperative to engage in social sex, just as he is under no imperative that prohibits sex for money.
I see no moral offense in that

[Elias]

Surely, if every macho-male in a managerial position who ever paid for sex should lose his job, the UK - the World - would suddenly come to a stand-still for lack of political and business management. Not to mention any kind of sports.
Let the one without guilt throw the first stone etc etc.

[bobomeister]

without the nazi angle the NOTW could not run the article - that will be their public interest wins over privacy and therefore we published point. i am sure MM will whip up a defence find a spanking good barrister - however if you read what is allegedly on the film MM is doomed to fail and the Syed's of this world will fade away: "One woman inspects his head for lice before he is interrogated and whipped. Mr Mosley then switches roles and "tortures" one of the prostitutes. He even issues orders in German." that i am afraid discredits his sport and he will be shown the door shortly - good riddance.

[Paul Durston]

Did Max Mosley insult the Jews? No.

Did the News of the World insult the Jews by broadcasting Mosley's activities? Something for a court to decide.

Why does the News of the World risk prosecution to bring this to their readers? Because they think their readers will pay good money for it.

Did Max Mosley really think that he wouldn't be bubbled up? Obviously.

Who's the bad guy? I don't think it's Max Mosley - he's just a fool.

Is it wise to allow fools to hold highly paid and highly responsible positions in any organisation? No.

Has Finkelstein's argument got any substance? Who cares?

By encouraging the continuance of this debate, has The Times bracketed itself with the News of the World?

By contributing to this debate have Times readers bracketed themselves with News of the World readers?

Well, I've contributed so I suppose that makes me as guilty as everyone else.

[Roopa]

Would it have made a difference whether Mr Tom,Dick or Harry did what Mr Mosley did ? Remember each one is paying an amount for the services ,
The real differentiation Mr Finkelstein, is Mr Mosley himself- what drives behavioural economics is the premium attached to the outcomes of Mr Mosleys actions rather than Mr Dick's actions.'

You may like to revise your piece -surely you're joking Mr Finkelstein!

[Castor]

The question for me is: Who Else Knew?

Who might have been able to apply some leverage? Say about a year ago?

I think we need to know.

[mary]

If this is all true.....
he is a sick man. Mental issues have not prevented mankind to be successful. Just depends how one looks at success. Power, greed, money..... makes the world go round. Let us all be aware of our dark sides, and make sure that our enlightened and healthy sides rule our and others life.

[joao]

By the authors rational, if the same act was conducted for free (e.g., lets say between husband and wife), then it would still be characterised as a "social transaction", hence should be treated as private?! This post is simply the biggest nonsense I have read in a long time. It does not bring any valid point to the discussion and lacks of rational. Clearly an example of something that should have been kept private.

[Greg P]

I think the media should pay people like Mosley, Spitzer, Craig et al, for using their humility in the face of poor judgement for their own gain. The media cares less for these people than anything else. There are no qualms about 'reporting' the very last detail, despite the impending ruin for the target - not victim, knowing that all the while, profits are to be generated at the fascination with human demise. It's a shame . . .

[Thomas W]

Again, this is private behaviour and was never intended to be publicly broadcast.

Since it is private, always was private, and should still be private.. why are we talking about this non-topic, anyway?

It's a NON-TOPIC.

And as far as paid sex & the more bizarre/ salacious practices go (rent boys, BDSM etc), judges, lawyers & probably journalists are well-represented;
Along with the judgemental 'holier than thou' middle (or chattering) classes; and especially, their partners.

Ladies, gentlemen, think twice.. before you rush to judgement.

Your sharply-turned nose and judgemental air, may be *exactly* the reason your partner has ended up indulging in behaviour, most decidedly unpleasant and immoral.

Adults shuold have their own life to live, not spurious rumour-mongering and gossip.

Didn't Winston Churchill enact some law against this? Idle chitchat.. layabouts.. Humph! :)

[e pryor]

So Mr Finkelstein what if Mr Mosley decides to give a million to the BNP in the hope it may thrash your sensibilities?. They could do with it.

[bernadine]

i wish someone would expose a senior member of the press and all their intimate fantasies, secrets and anything else which could possibly be found. you would then see a quick reversal and someone bleeting about invasion of privacy, although they do it everyday to others

[Julian Gent]

It's a terrific read and I am very jealous of Max.

Splendid stuff and £5k sounds very cheap to me.

More, more

[Matthew]

My only criticism of Mosley is that he didn't pay enough per girl and so the quality was pretty low. Why have 5 of them? Surely 2 or 3 real corkers would have done the trick?

My only comment on Prof. Ariely is: oh dear, not another Yank who thinks he's cleverer than he really is. What a load of nonsense.

[Frank Upton]

"Great men of action... never mind on occasion being ridiculous; in a sense it is part of their job, and at times they all are." - Sir Oswald Mosley

[Dorothy Granville]

Anyone in public life who pays for sex is playing with fire. His utterly distasteful sexual antics, whether paid for or not, should not however be used to sell newspapers, nor should kiss and tell memoirs be paid for. There are many kinds of prostitution.

[Nicholas Storey]

What an extraordinary range of literacy (rather than literary ability) is shown in this thread.
NJS.

[Nicholas Storey]

At least one person has commented, above, on what extraordinarily good value Max had for his money: but maybe he got rather more than he bargained for - whuch seems to have been a scoured bottom: here, there and everywhere.
NJS