F1 » Heidfeld better than 'disrespectful' Hamilton.

Nathan, you have already got your backside kicked by various posters for referring to Villenueve as a "nearly man", so I will not add more, except that you should research driver facts better before you make an a.ss of yourself. JV- WDC with Williams/Renault in 1997, a "nearly man"? phew!!!!! Both Jacques and Frentzen are spot on in their comments, but the main culprit was of course Ron Dennis. After the Australian GP he has been heard telling Lewis on the radio- "One in, 17 to go, and if you get them all right like this you have it in the bag". Ron wanted a fairy tale finish last year, ignoring his main investment,(FA as 2xWDC), and finished losing everything.

F1 » Alonso: McLaren are 'not a winning team'.

Panuno, if we go by your own thinking and say that Reanult have started in F1 from 1977, albeit as engine suppliers to different teams and as well as on their own, then they have won: 7 (seven) World Drivers Championships; and 8 (eight) Constructors Championships; which is not that all bad considering. What Fernando meant by saying that McLaren are not a winning team is not because they cannot design a good car or because their engine supplier is not one of the very best, BUT, the reasons are as what we have been saying all along: 1) Bad drivers' policy; 2) Bad race strategy and management; 3) Lack of development drivers, and sheer disrespect for the only one that they had in 2007.

F1 » Schumacher back in F1 saddle.

The reason why wealthy teams with huge budgets take a number of years to develop a race winning car is mainly due to the lack of a specialist, development, racing driver with an engineering capability to iron the wrinkles out of the car as quickly as possible and whose feedback to the team is 100% accurate and not just gueswork, BMW-Sauber, Toyota, Honda and even Mclaren, have all sufferred because of this. When have they won last? Ferrari, have the ultimate development driver, whose credentials on the track will take about another fifty years to emulate if ever. MS is the best. Rules are dicussed with all teams at the same time, it's those with foresight that benefit mostly.

F1 » FIA confirms meeting on Mosley's future.

The general assembly of the FIA shall require the Presidents of the 222 National associations and Clubs that are members of the FIA, who incidentally come from about 125 countries around the world, to convene in Paris for the General Assembly meeting. It is not possible simply to give a few days notice to all these people. Notice have to be given with a reasonable time span so that everyone would have the chance of making their arrangements and to take care of other priorities. Already various countries have cancelled Max's invitations to their events, and this time span will give all concerned space to come to the only reasonable conclusion to this mess. Max must go.

F1 » STOP PRESS: Mosley loses first court battle.

The term legitimate public interest was stated by the Judge, and Max's QC stated that there was no longer public interest of the video's footage. Both terms mean the same thing if one delves in the meaning and connotations of the word legitimate. Regardless of what was said at this stage, Max does not have a foot to stand on as it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person in the video was in fact himself. As the Judge also said, Max cannot expect any privacy on this matter as the video's contents are now so widely spread. Any further delay in his resignation and threats of suing everyone for damages will in the end prove to be an exercise in futility.

F1 » Judge: Mosley has no expectation of privacy.

By the way Simon, what James Price QC, argued was specifically- "That there was NO PUBLIC INTEREST in the video's footage". The word legitimate was only mentioned by the Judge. I had only criticised James Price's QC statement, if I recollect correctly. Simon you have missed my point in its totality, and I think that it is you who should have re-read the article as well as my first post again.

F1 » Judge: Mosley has no expectation of privacy.

Simon, my friend, I beg to differ on the meaning of the word or term legitimate. Legitimate interest may mean lawful, legal or legit interest. BUT it can also mean: Genuine; rightful; justifiable; reasonable; valid; wll-founded interest; etc. Don't you think that we as F1 followers and possible members of our national associations, have a genuine, rightful, justifiable, reasonable, valid and a well-founded interest in the publication of this subject? Don't you think that the Council Members of all 222 National Associations and Clubs that are members of the FIA have a legitimate, lawful, legal, legit interest in the subject on which they shall be asked to vote in June?

F1 » Judge: Mosley has no expectation of privacy.

Simon, I hope that you are not excusing Max!!!!! "no legitimate public interest" or "no public interest" means absolutely the same thing. That is the way QC's express themselves, the meaning is the same. Of course there is public interest, of course there is legitimate public interest by the national associations and their presidents. We as the public have an interest, and the National Associations have to take a vote on it, so they have a full legitimate interest.

F1 » JPM: Mosley affair just 'a laughing matter'.

If anything the man has made a laughing stock of himself and his position as President of the FIA is no longer tenable. He has not broken any laws, but being shown exhibiting himself in such a way has made Max the joke of the year, and he has made a mockery of his position. Prolonging his departure shall make matters worse for him seeing the number of invitations that have been withdrawn by certain countries, and of course will give more time for more leaders of national associations to discuss the matter. In a calm environment and not on the spur of the moment, people will make much more rational decisions. His days in the FIA are numbered.

F1 » Judge: Mosley has no expectation of privacy.

James Price QC is wrong to say that the footage has no public interest. The site where it is shown has been hit by anything around 1,500,000 times. Sorry James, but you seem to be as out of touch with reality as your client.