Talk:Oswald Mosley

	This Fascism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

Clarification required

As World War II approached, he began an anti-war campaign on the theme of Mind Britain's Business, which was at first popular enough to regain back support to his BUF, but became highly unpopular after the invasion of Norway and the start of The Blitz to the point of being wounded in an assault

Was he injured in the Blitz, or from an unrelated personal assault?-- Token Conservative ^{Feminist Thought Police} 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From an assault related to his antiwar activities. Faunas (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

max mosley and sex scandal

its probably not a good idea to assert that the uniforms were nazi uniforms considering he won that particular libel case. also, not really sure its at all relevant in an article about his dad. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. --85.76.7.60 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

also

no battle of cable street, often described as 'the moment at which British fascism was decisively defeated'? come on now, a footnote doesnt really cut it AMassiveGay (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor is there anything about Notting Hill either. --85.76.7.60 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Of interest ...

... my father was interned, mostly on the IOM under Defence Regulation 18B as one of Mosley's 'boys'. Scream!! (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

max mosley again

there is no reason for this section to be in this article. here mention of his legal action against press intrusion seem only to be a chance for lurid regurgitation of tabloid claims of his sexual activity in his 70s adding absolutely nothing to an article about his dad. further more, the 'discovery' that he had distributed pamphlets racist pamphlets at a time when he helped on his dads campaign when he was 21 is a revelation of no shit sherlock investigative journalism from the tabloids that he had successfully sued over their invasion of his privacy and their phone hacking (activities we all know were common practice for the the tabloid press at the time invading the privacy of everyone from royalty down to the victims of serial killers). the only motivation for the publishing of this non story was for revenge and attempt to discredit someone who had shined a light on their illegal and fucking disgusting activities and which we very kindly oblige here. max mosleys activities when he was 21 does not in any way justify the intrusion into his privacy in his 70s or print lies to make what what was found from this intrusion more salacious, and it still does not make inclusion in this article any more valid. and neither does his eventual suicide after discovering he had terminal cancer.

Im removing it. do not reinsert without discussion here, and you'd better have a good reason. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I actually think that's fair, for the most part. At the end of the day, the article should be about Oswald. Sins of the father, and all that. However, I do think that pointing out that Max was involved with his father's attempted political comeback in the early 60s is relevant, since that's related directly to the subject of the article. The Hesketh leaflets were published under Max's name, and although quite a few right-wing political candidates used such language at the time, it doesn't make it any less disgusting. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:D54:2182:D300:754E (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

it is not interesting nor surprising both mosley's sons were involved in their dad's political campaigning. max's involvement in politics was done with by 1964. its not noteworthy here. no doubt those were those leaflets were racist, no doubt disgusting. max mosley has said as much himself. he's not denied his involvement with his dad's politics in this period. the leaflets add nothing to an article about oswald and would only have any relevance to one concerning max because they were dug up by the daily 'hurray for the blackshirts' mail 56 years later to accuse him perjury after he had successfully sued the NotW and campaigning for press regulation. they are only relevent in that context and that context has no importance to an article about oswald. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hesketh was a Union Movement candidate. The Union Movement was founded by Oswald Mosley. Surely the two are related. Max was also arrested (but later acquitted) when Oswald was attacked during a rally in 1962 (he said he was trying to defend his father). Again, that's clearly relevant to Oswald, since it directly involved him.

I agree that Max's later life and the sex party nonsense is irrelevant; but the fact that those leaflets were dredged up by the gutter press, or that Max said much later on that they did not represent his views, does not change the fact that he published and endorsed them at the time. To ignore them altogether is, in my opinion, whitewashing, and disrespectful to the people those leaflets were aimed at. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:89E5:C9C6:F4DD:2A8A (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

i repeat, this is an article about oswald mosley not max mosley. the leaflets dug up are barely noteworthy for max, only being so because the mail were claiming he perjured himself. they are not noteworthy to oswalds article though. the racism expressed in the leaflets isnt noteworthy to this article - repatriation and tales of criminality and the sexual deviance of black people was already the party line and campaign strategy for oswald and the union movement since when he was a candidate in the 1959 general election. if an anonymous party official had signed off on the leaflets, they would not be noteworthy - similar leaflets would have printed and distributed everywhere union movement were contesting a seat. that the official was oswalds son is not noteworthy - max and his brother had been helping with their dads politics since their teens (here barely out of them) and would have been signing off on leaflets with what was essentially the party line. neither of oswalds sons warrant much of a mention in an article that focuses almost exclusively on his political career having very little influence on it. max maybe doing as little as rubber stamping a request for a batch of campaign materials when he served as an election agent at 21 years of age (he was done with politics by 24) doesnt even cut it as trivia. it only has any relevance within the context of max mosley's legal battles with the press over privacy and phoned hacking 56 years later and we both agree that is not relevant here AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Simply stating that Max's involvement with his father's political activities is irrelevant or trivial seems rather tenuous. How the information was dredged up does not alter the facts. An article which mentions the Union Movement but totally fails to mention the fact that two of Mosley's sons were involved strikes me as odd (the rest of his children were not involved, and the eldest, Nicholas, actively repudiated his father). The two are linked; it is part of history. Max was 21 in 1962; he was a grown adult who knew exactly what he was doing and clearly agreed with his father's beliefs, or else he wouldn't have been wasting his time in Moss Side. That he was done with politics a few years later doesn't change any of the facts; Hesketh was roundly defeated and the UM showed no signs of being able to win a raffle, much less an election, so Max left an unsuccessful political movement. Stating that he was "maybe doing as little as rubber stamping a request for a batch of campaign materials" is a stretch. Max and Alexander were both involved with UM marches and meetings (at one of these, Alex declared "It is time something was done to stop coloured people entering in the country"); as I pointed out, Max was arrested at a march after his father was attacked. Do I think that requires a whole section? No. But it seems strange to remove any and all mention of this stuff.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll paste the sort of thing I would put in the article here as a guideline. If a consensus develops in favour, it can either be put in or serve as a template. If not, then it can just stay here or be removed:

"That same year, the Union Movement chose to campaign in Manchester's Moss Side by-election with a candidate, Walter Hesketh, "who campaigned on an unashamedly racist ticket."[1] Mosley's son, Max (who later achieved fame in the world of Formula One racing) served as an election agent for Hesketh, and published a leaflet that "pledged to ‘stop coloured immigration’, which, it claimed, ‘threatens your children’s health’."[2] However, "Hesketh was roundly rejected by voters. He polled just 1,200 votes and lost his deposit."[3] Mosley also returned to the East End yet again in 1962, leading a rally which predictably ended in violence.[4] At one point, Mosley was knocked to the ground by protestors; his son Max, who was also present, was arrested and charged with threatening behaviour, although he was subsequently "acquitted after the court heard that he had been protecting his father".[5] 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:B9CA:B3CD:CB5E:DF81 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

EC there is nothing significant about his kids being involved in his politics from a relatively early age. there is nothing significant about that his kids did as part of their involvment with his politics. his kids played no part in the evolution of his political views and they were not significant in the evolution of british fascism or the british far right. there presence on the scene is entirely down to their dad being their dad prime mover and the period of time - late 50s early 60s - is period where their dad's influence was in terminal decline. the specific activities of his kids within in the UM are only of significant to his kids and by the time the mail were digging up dirt to discredit max when he was campaigning for press regulation 56 years had passed with nothing to suggest in that time he shared his fathers views or any racism, almost as if his politics when he was barely more than a kid were heavily influenced by proximity to his dad who if you remember IS the face of british fascism - yes 21 is barely more than kid and reaching the age of majority does not make anyone a fully formed, mature and confident adult able with a world view derived independently from any undue influence like oswald fucking mosley.

i see no reason to condemn people for holding dubious views in their youth or their activities resultant from these views when their activities were so inconsequential and so insignificant not just to the political movement that they were born into but to the course of the rest of their lives. pretending that max mosleys activities were significant or in anyway note worthy to are an article detailing the political life of oswald mosley, who i repeat is not max mosley. to insist there is something of note relevent to the course of oswalds political career is to ignore the context of the time, ignore the context of why max mosley's past was being dug up 56 years later and give undue weight to insignificant events and actions, making huge assumptions about max mosleys motives and his influence on someone elses campaign from the position that he held - that of electoral agent, and of his importance to and influence on the UM more broadly. ribber stamping an order fpr more leaflets is an entirely plausible explanation for the this leaflet non issue. there isnt really a much greater part in its production he could have had than ordering a batch. he could he certainly didnt write the thing. the significance of his part in this leaflet business is not anything to do oswald mosley or any of the events taking place during this period but entirely to do with his court cased against the news of the world and the insistence of the daily mail it proves he pejured himself. its a claim entirely pedantic in nature and it didnt lead to a conviction of perjury so its not even any more significant than a way to discredit a man campaigning for more accountability in the press by shrieking racist and pretending this leaflet proves it but really about what anyone would expect from the campaign max mosley was involved with and was already a matter of public record.

was max mosley a racist or hold racist views at this time? probably. was he a jack booted thug beyond redemption even after 56 years and a life time of work with nothing to do with this early period of his life? no. was his activities in this period significant to any one but max mosley and his possible biographers? no not at all.

i will finish with again repeating oswald mosley is not max mosley. this article is for oswald mosley. i have explained at length and several times why the activities of max mosley are not relevant to an article concerning oswald mosley. please explain why these leaflets and max's role in the creation is significant to oswald mosleys political career. please explain why any of max's activities while under his fathers influence is significant to his fathers political career. please explain how any of max's activities in this period are significant in any way beyond that his dad was the face of british fascism and that in his youth he did a racism AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

your proposed addition gives too much weight max mosleys activities. they just are not noteworthy in an article about his father. being his son does not make them noteworthy here and his activities described are just about typical for any bit player in oswalds political movement. we are only even discussing this because it was initially focused on his sex scandal which we agree has no place here. his political work in this period only had significance relating that resulting court cases and in the tabloids trying to smear anyone involved with the leaveson inquiry. painting mosley as an unashamed and unrepentant racist failed in court as strategy but tabloids are sore losers and more than happy to tarnish ones reputation. ive no doubt max held views as unpleasant as his fathers in his youth. it would be a surprise if he didnt. its not significant though and he was not a significant part of oswalds political life to document in an article that has this as its focus. just mentioning oswald had two sons by mitford who were involved with his campaigning from their teens through to their early twenties gives too much weight to what is a trivial fact within the scope the of the article. if it were not trivial, we would have details of what oswalds other kids were up to within his politics. but we dont. we only know about oswald because the the news of the world took photos of mosley at an orgy and tried to claim it was nazi themed and mocking the holocaust to justify publishing photos and a story of someone having sex, the name mosley on its own enough to convince bullshit made from whole cloth was true. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Your view on the relevance of these facts obviously differs from mine. I don't see how mentioning these facts in a short paragraph is providing some unduly irrelevant weight or significance. I feel they are relevant to the article because they're a part of Oswald Mosley's history. 21 is not barely more than a kid; that's an adult, by any metric you want to use. And pointing out facts is not condemning people; not once did I say he was "a jack booted thug beyond redemption even after 56 years", not even in subtext. Pointing out his involvement in the UM is not the same thing. It seems to me to be absurd to talk about Mosley's activities in the late 50s and 60s without making one single reference to the fact that two of his sons were also involved, regardless of how much you want to mitigate their behaviour. In Max's case, he was arrested for assaulting or threatening protestors who attacked his father during yet another one of his marches. That particular piece of news isn't even directly linked to the Mail or the NotW case, which you continue to bring up. To describe that as somehow not relevant at all is baffling to me. The reason we don't have detailed info on the activities of Alex and Max within the UM is because by that period (when they had both reached adulthood) the movement and Mosley were declining and thoroughly tainted, but this isn't a reason to just ignore it in my view; the UM's failure to win the Moss Side by-election and Max choosing to leave politics not long after is surely not a coincidence. The point is that they were there, and are thus linked to their father's failed attempt to return to politics. Vivien, Nicholas and Michael, Oswald's children with Cimmie, were not involved (in fact, Nicholas strongly rebuked his father, and told him in the late 50s that "You are being wicked. You’re being insane. Just as you were in the 1930s.").

Anyway, arguing over this point is silly. I'll abide by whatever the consensus turns out to be. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:E9B5:22AB:B7ED:682B (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

EC the very mentioning of these trivial events gives them weight. the article is not an all encompassing biography of oswalds life its an article on a wiki. what is is included must serve the purpose of informing the reader of who oswald was, his politics, how they evolved and his place in then wider world, then and now. enough context needs to be provided to make sure it does not just paint oswald as a pantomime villain but to over whelm with trivia and over ananlysis. its meant to be an over view of the man. we leave alot out to this, condensing much that could and would be expanded upon in a fuller deeper biography, but for our purposes only a couple a sentences will suffice to convey a salient point. what is there is by its very inclusion given weight. that it is an important enough detail that it merits its inclusion or else why would we bother mentioning it?

max mosley was a minor figure in his fathers party, and at a time when his influence and that of his party was in terminal decline. a minor figure in a minor party. if we ignore the family connection between the two for a moment, forget for a moment they are father and son. what is the significance of maxs activities to oswald? what is the significance to party? what do these activities mean to an over view of oswalds political life? they mean next to nothing. oswald was physically attacked all the time when out campaigning. that was not significant to him and was the reason he had set up the biff boys in the 30s for defence. violence was never far when out on the campaign trail and with the context of race riots around this period just as likely as ever. im sure oswald would have been proud of his son in this one incident, as he would have been grateful to him if he were not his son. but its not worth mentioning this one incident in this article. its not significant to its focus. max did some canvassing for oswald in 1959. not significant to the scope of this article, with or without taking into account his being oswalds son. then we are left with his time as an electoral agent for hasketh - this time max is not even working directly for his old man but for hesketh. certainly not significant to oswald if max were not his son, he'd be just an employee. that he is his son doesnt really add anything to the article. that hasketh was trounced at the polls and looked to me like it was a pretty safe seat the conservatives at the time anyway, gives it even less significance in the scope of the article. ive been over and over why the leaflet is not significant and when written down as you have in your proposed addition it is all the more apparent that it unduly inflates its significance and maxs own part in 'publishing' this leaflet and responsibility for its content which even max himself has said is racist. the implications of framing this leaflet business with none of the context are unavoidable and not at all supported when the context is known. merely stating he 'published a leaflet' and then giving some choice quotes of its racist content is not just a stating of the facts. it lays responsibility entirely for it, its racist nature included, at max mosleys feet. he need not not create the leaflet - no one has claimed this and the racist talking points of leaflet was already a strategy of um politics and had been employed by oswald himself in 1959. it was racist but no more racist than the UM as whole. it was par for the course as such the leaflet is not significant to an oswalds article. as for 'publishing' what does that mean here? what does publishing a leaflet involve? in the perjury claim by the daily mail 56 years later - the only reason the leaflet is significant at all, was that max mosley denied its existence. in response he said he was unaware of its existence and does not believe he would have authorised publication if he had been. we might say to ourselves 'really max?' but we cannot say he is lying. part his job was to authorise the allocation funds campaign materials. he could quite easily authorise funds to print of 500 leaflet of a particular design without too much scrutiny of what the leaflet actually contained. he could have authorised the same number of stickers and the same number of flags, and maybe a bit of bunting too as requested by party members knocking on doors. he could just as easily have a staff member delegated for this task with a rubber while he focused on the part his job concerned with electoral procedure and counting of votes. the leaflet was only relevent to the daily mails accusation of perjury. it is not significant to oswalds article because its racism was already the the party line and campaign strategy of the UM and it is not significant to max mosley at the time as it was simply part of the admin of his role as electoral agent. you wonder why i keep coming back to this? its because while the other noted two facts are given undue weight by their inclusion, they are trivial in their significance. the leaflets though give undue wait not just to a bare context free fact, but heavily imply sole responsibility for the creation of a leaflet that plumbs new depths racism, implying that racism is max mosleys own. this is just false concerning its creation, false on the novelty of the racism already apart of UM while max denies ever knowingly endorsing racism as it is manifested in the leaflet. the context is absent that makes this clear and makes this leaflet of no importance to the oswald article and amkes clear its significance lies 56 years with the hypocrisy of the daily mail perjury accusation that did not lead to a conviction.

3 facts elevated from the trivial just by their inclusion, one of which egregiously so. the context missing explains why they are trivial and of no significance to the this article about oswald mosley and the scope that it has. if we had an article on max mosley they would be fine there, but more room for context around these facts would not make it any easier to paint max mosley as an unabashed racist. we dont so they are surplus to requirement at best, misleading to an almost libelous degree at worst. please explain the significance of these facts about max mosley that they warrant inclusion in an article concerned with his dad.

and 21 is bare more than a child. when you reach your forties i dare you to tell me otherwise. any child born to mosley and mitford would find them hard pressed to decide what of their world view is entirely their own and what was their parents masquerading as their own. as max himself puts it "I was born into this rather strange family and then at a certain point you get away from that." AMassiveGay (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

concensus might be a problem. it is only us discussing it. and why does it take reams and fucking reams to explain trivial facts are trivial. why the fuck do i even care? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Simply stating something is irrelevant or trivial doesn't constitute an argument. It's your opinion. Of course Max and Oswald are linked by them being family, you can't just arbitrarily ignore the connection; it's clear that Max wanted to help his father out, that's obviously why he was involved with the UM in the first place. At the same time, you didn't see Nicholas marching alongside his dad, and even though Nick didn't have a lunatic like Diana Mitford for a mother, I find putting the blame on the parents to be more than a little dubious. Plenty of people have racist parents and don't grow up to share their values. I'm in my thirties now, but I was an adult at 21, and I own whatever I did and said at the time. In my father's day (which was very close to Max's, oddly enough), a man became a man at 18, sometimes earlier; adults were not infantilized like they are today. Even so, "youth" and upbringing are not an excuse for holding shitty beliefs, even if you renounce them later. You can't just ignore the parts of a person's past that are inconvenient, but that's not really the point. I don't think writing a few sentences about a factual incident gives undue weight to anything. You state that mentioning this would "heavily imply sole responsibility", which is your interpretation, and not supported by the facts. Incidentally, am I supposed to believe that Max published a leaflet with his name on it and didn't know what was written on it or approve of it? Because that's a real stretch. When Max was quoted by the Manchester Evening News at the time, he absolutely endorsed the same sentiments. "A law to send them all back where they came from - that’s what we advocate. You wouldn’t call it deportation; they would just be told to go back." I'm just wondering what Max would need to have done to reach your threshold for significance.

I'm not sure why you care, I can't answer a rhetorical question. I'm simply stating that I won't add anything to the article about it, but if somebody else comes along and disagrees, they can use what I've written as a template, that's all. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:B59C:2DFC:A3DA:78B (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

i have repeatedly and at length explained my reasoning the lack of significance. i given plenty of context for each of max's actions showing why are not significant. ive given an explanation of the his role as electoral agent, i given the history of violence that oswald mosley seems to draw to himself, ive shown the racist talking points in the leaflet predate it and already well established, ive shown how max's role in the leaflets publication could easily have been slight, that we can draw no conclusions from it, that max himself denies knowledge of its content and washes his hands of it, specifically of the claims of black people spreading stds, ive shown why the leaflet surfaced 56 years later, why the motives for this make an issue of his involvement and knowledge of the leaflet and why it is irrelevant here.

further i have explained the scope of the article, explained why a section on his son does not fall within the scope the article and why within that scope just being his son does not make his actions relevant nor make them significant in any way, have explained why his inclusion give too much weight to trivial facts that would be free the context i have repeatedly provided that show them to be trivial with the added bonus of forcing a heavily implied accusation of max mosley knowingly and willing responsible for the racism of the leaflet, strongly denied by him, vastly inflating his position within um and his influence and misunderstands the role he was employed to perform.

you have ignored all that i have provided in support of my case and say i am just insisting on things being trivial. fuck off with that. you are free to disagree with my reasoning, i do not ever claim i cannot be wrong and i am more than happy to concede my points if i am shown my error. but please do not tell me all i have done is insist on the triviality of what little facts are known. i do insist on their triviality, but importantly - and at great length, i have explained why thry trivial. if we must complain about people just 'insisting' on things we can look at your own argument which really is little more than insisting on their significance and relevance to the article, literally just the restating of the bare facts, with no reference to the context i provided or providing any of your own, but making huge assumptions about max mosley, about his motivations, his position and influence within um, and his commitment and dedication to a racist cause, which are simply not supported by what is known, and denied by max himself in his libel case that he won in which similar assumptions formed part of the notw's defence. so committed and dedicated was he to the cause that he walked away from his fathers politics shortly after never to look back and rarely commenting on that period of his life. even if assuming the absolute worst is all true it still would not make appropriate additions to this article. i will ask again because you have continually refused to answer - what makes all this relevant to the article? what is the significance of maxs activities? these are not rhetorical questions, these are what need to be answered to make your case.

this is an article about oswald mosley. max mosley's activities are beyond its scope, and his inclusion is just tacked on and without the necessary context so giving weight and implications to things not supported by what is known with assumptions about him that the name mosley make easy to believe doing the heavy lifting. if you want to examine max's politics and beliefs in this period and beyond, his views would better served in an article about max mosley where maxs actvities would be both relevant and significant, and there would be room for the necessary context that would be absent from the article here. that no such article for max mosley exists and likely never will does not mean it should be tacked on to his fathers article. 11:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)