Christian Horner
Discussion
Graveworm said:
People keep asking and I don't think you have answered what viable context would make the messages OK? If there isn't one then waiting for the context is moot.
Waiting until you are certain you know everything, before deciding anything is a path to absolute clarity; but it's an unproductive way to exist.
It's not about 'making the messages ok'. That is possibly what some of the folks are getting themselves confused over. It is about clarifying their impact and relevance or simply confirming any bias. They're a selection of cherry picked messages by one person, for one person. You can't just accept evidence of that nature because of its potential for bias or deception so you seek more that will corroborate. Waiting until you are certain you know everything, before deciding anything is a path to absolute clarity; but it's an unproductive way to exist.
And if one steps back and looks at those messages they don't actually say some of the things that some are 100% adamant they do say. There is clear room within that message set to question what this 'relationship' was. And it's important to recognise that if what had happened was exactly as some are claiming then CH genuinely couldn't have remained as long as he had.
So this isn't about guilty or not guilty it is about suggesting that wiser people don't form lynch mobs on the back of headlines from tabloids and then run around stating something they technically cannot prove is an absolute fact while attacking and name calling as apologists those who happen to suggest waiting for more clarity.
Hence why those messages need to be discounted until then as you cannot form a clear or accurate case just on the back of them.
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
You aren't giving evidence to a post office enquiry in the next week or so are you? You would fit in perfectly.
It's the exact opposite isn't it? 
The person stating more evidence is required so as to ensure a fair trial and probably guilty charge is being shut down by a mob of people who have made up their minds without sufficient evidence and are trying to force their devout belief into others. Forester1965 said:
If the context is accurate you've an employer sexually harassing an employee even after being told to stop. The only realistic exculpatory scenario I can imagine in those circumstances would be explicit words or actions on behalf of the PA that undermined the demands to stop.
Why use the word 'If' though?732NM said:
DonkeyApple said:
Hence why those messages need to be discounted until then as you cannot form a clear or accurate case just on the back of them.
So you are now back to saying the messages should be discounted. You flip flop more than a bad politician.
You even copied and pasted exactly what was written but now I'm beginning to think that maybe you genuinely don't understand!!
Let's see how emotional the little lynch mob can get today but I must warn you that I do have a few other things to be getting in with. I can't spend all day in the flat roof pub.
Jasandjules said:
Boom78 said:
I ask again; do you REALLY care about the PA or is it just an opportunity to put the boot in?
Are you honestly happy with the content of the text messages and the implications? 
DonkeyApple said:
732NM said:
That's some very poor written gymnastics you're trying to execute there. I'll score it a 3 just for the brass neck content.
?It's pretty clear for all to be honest. Lynch mobs are for Jeremy Kyle absorbers, everyone else, who is normal just puts the limited evidence to once side while awaiting further clarity.
There's no gymnastics required unless some folks struggle with basic English and choose to live a headline at a time. Which would be very sad.
Tim the pool man said:
Jasandjules said:
Boom78 said:
I ask again; do you REALLY care about the PA or is it just an opportunity to put the boot in?
Are you honestly happy with the content of the text messages and the implications? Wills2 said:
Agreed, we've only got one side of the story but for many that's enough to convict him and defame anyone for merely pointing that out, I'd imagine Horner is probably glad Lando won this weekend to take the heat off AN leaving.
The majority of what we've seen has been from Horner's side. There has been nothing from the woman herself, and the only thing of note has been the supposed, but not denied, leaked online conversation between them. Yet many post condemn the woman despite the complete dearth of response from her.Derek Smith said:
Wills2 said:
Agreed, we've only got one side of the story but for many that's enough to convict him and defame anyone for merely pointing that out, I'd imagine Horner is probably glad Lando won this weekend to take the heat off AN leaving.
The majority of what we've seen has been from Horner's side. There has been nothing from the woman herself, and the only thing of note has been the supposed, but not denied, leaked online conversation between them. Yet many post condemn the woman despite the complete dearth of response from her.
DonkeyApple said:
Graveworm said:
People keep asking and I don't think you have answered what viable context would make the messages OK? If there isn't one then waiting for the context is moot.
Waiting until you are certain you know everything, before deciding anything is a path to absolute clarity; but it's an unproductive way to exist.
It's not about 'making the messages ok'. That is possibly what some of the folks are getting themselves confused over. It is about clarifying their impact and relevance or simply confirming any bias. They're a selection of cherry picked messages by one person, for one person. You can't just accept evidence of that nature because of its potential for bias or deception so you seek more that will corroborate. Waiting until you are certain you know everything, before deciding anything is a path to absolute clarity; but it's an unproductive way to exist.
And if one steps back and looks at those messages they don't actually say some of the things that some are 100% adamant they do say. There is clear room within that message set to question what this 'relationship' was. And it's important to recognise that if what had happened was exactly as some are claiming then CH genuinely couldn't have remained as long as he had.
So this isn't about guilty or not guilty it is about suggesting that wiser people don't form lynch mobs on the back of headlines from tabloids and then run around stating something they technically cannot prove is an absolute fact while attacking and name calling as apologists those who happen to suggest waiting for more clarity.
Hence why those messages need to be discounted until then as you cannot form a clear or accurate case just on the back of them.
It's not a lynch mob, I have neither attacked you nor called you names, it's deciding, on all the available information, what weight I will give to it, when forming a personal view about Red Bull and Horner. If and when more information comes to light I will revise that. What I won't do is decide it all looks pretty damning, but I will discount that until I know everything. If I saw him in person, saying almost any of those things to her, if I had nothing else to go on, I would form a view despite appreciating I know little of what the background and context were.
Red Bull don't have to sack Horner they can choose the sanction, if any. I don't know if I think they should, they have fiduciary reposnibilities. but that's not the same as clearing him. Even if it gets to an ET hearing which finds against them and or Horner, it only infrequently makes a recommendation alongside a payment, Even when it does, it's seldom, sack someone and even then, they don't have to follow that, although that would leave them very vulnerable if anything similar happens again.
Edited by Graveworm on Monday 6th May 17:06
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff