Christian Horner
Discussion
Muzzer79 said:
Durzel said:
Jasandjules said:
Durzel said:
Gut feeling is that it's only a big deal in the minds of:
.
Another one who thinks it is fine for a male boss to threaten the job of a female junior who won't pleasure them sexually I see. .
This is a big deal in the mind of anyone with a sense of morality or decency.
If this was your daughter would you be so pleased?
And this is a sport that is supposed to be championing females FFS. How do think this helps?
You can’t prove the messages are legitimate any more than I can prove they’re not. The difference is I’m not condemning someone because I’ve just decided they are.
I mean, think about it - a simple statement saying
“We dispute the authenticity of these messages and have reason to believe they have been fabricated”
Means that it turns from damage control to potentially fake news. That affects the credibility of the story and reduces the public pressure on your (innocent, in this scenario) CEO.
So the question is; if they’re not genuine, why not deny it?
Absence of confirmation does not equal confirmation. They don’t owe it to you to deny the authenticity of the messages, or to mention them at all. After all, the messages haven’t been reported on in detail in the press, none of the outlets are prepared to stand behind them.
Denying the authenticity of the messages to people who already disbelieve the party line achieves nothing. People who already think it’s legitimate and have condemned Horner and the whole process of him being exonerated by a KC - some of whom are in this thread - won’t have their minds changed by RBR/Horner denying their legitimacy.
This is all a confidential matter that happens to be of interest to the public, but it’s not in the public interest. Commenting on the contents of this leak goes against the attitude of keeping the matter confidential, and may prejudice any existing or future legal action.
To be absolutely clear - if the messages are genuine then there is clear evidence of coercive behaviour, even if there was a previous relationship. *IF* they are genuine then I would hope that Horner would be disciplined accordingly. Unlike the court of public opinion, however, I prefer to not condemn someone because a leak seems like it might be legitimate.
Edited by Durzel on Sunday 24th March 18:57
Derek Smith said:
rallycross said:
Derek Smith said:
I doubt you are a boss, otherwise you'd know, but if you are, and if this is how you behave, you have a rude awakening coming. Best of luck with the defence of 'everyone does it'.
I think you’ve gone a bit far there none of us know the real facts and things like this happen at work places all the time.We only have half the story and he’s not been fired (yet) so there will be more to this than what we have read on some leaked messages.
You seem to dismiss the leaked messages. No one has said they are in any way false. All RBR and Horner had to say was that they were made up, although, of course, had they and they turned out to be the truth, it's something to hit them with in any appeal and in the media, particularly the latter.
You suggest we've only had half the story. That's correct but I don't think in the way you mean. RBR's 'half' is that they set some lawyer on it and the matter was dismissed by internal decision. This has been touted by Horner as being cleared, when it obviously isn't.
What have we had from the victim in all of this? Where is her half? Has she stood up and said anything to the media, like RBR and Horner have done?
Some of you think this is a soap opera expecting phone-ins and a panel of celebrities to judge what should or shouldn’t happen. It doesn’t work like that in real life where employees have rights regardless of how senior they are in the company. It’s no different from your company and how you’d want to be treated if you too were caught up in a “he says, she says” work issue. You’d want to be to be treated fairly and guilt and punishment not assumed because the public, who do not know all of the facts, are baying for it.
The PA is not a victim. She’s just one of thousands of employees employed by RB. She has a grievance and the company is following due process. If they can’t work it out it’ll end up in a tribunal - eventually. If it gets there she’ll win, lose or settle beforehand, but the process has to play out.
If I were the “victim” that was offered €1M to settle, I’d have taken it and got on with my life.
Durzel said:
Absence of confirmation does not equal confirmation
You keep saying that as if it's an incontrovertible fact. If untrue the messages would be defamatry. They impact not only his own reputation, but those of his wife, children, employer and their commercial partners, as well the sport itself.
The idea that embarrassing, false, defamatry messages would be allowed to circulate without comment from Horner ignores reality. It also ignores Horner's character. He's a man who'd deny the existence of oxygen if it suited his purpose. He's also very well lawyered up and not short of resources.
Whether we've seen all of them or the appropriate context is open to question. Whether or not they were sent by him, absent a denial (not even a heavily qualified one), almost certainly isn't.
maz8062 said:
Again, you fail to realise that this is a work matter. It’s not public. RBR do not owe anyone outside of the company an explanation. They don’t have to respond publicly to internal affairs. Why should they comment on publicly leaked documents that do not explicitly divulge company matters? It’s none of their business and lest we forget, CH is also an employee, with rights as an employee just like the PA has.
Some of you think this is a soap opera expecting phone-ins and a panel of celebrities to judge what should or shouldn’t happen. It doesn’t work like that in real life where employees have rights regardless of how senior they are in the company. It’s no different from your company and how you’d want to be treated if you too were caught up in a “he says, she says” work issue. You’d want to be to be treated fairly and guilt and punishment not assumed because the public, who do not know all of the facts, are baying for it.
The PA is not a victim. She’s just one of thousands of employees employed by RB. She has a grievance and the company is following due process. If they can’t work it out it’ll end up in a tribunal - eventually. If it gets there she’ll win, lose or settle beforehand, but the process has to play out.
If I were the “victim” that was offered €1M to settle, I’d have taken it and got on with my life.
My conversation with you is now at an end.Some of you think this is a soap opera expecting phone-ins and a panel of celebrities to judge what should or shouldn’t happen. It doesn’t work like that in real life where employees have rights regardless of how senior they are in the company. It’s no different from your company and how you’d want to be treated if you too were caught up in a “he says, she says” work issue. You’d want to be to be treated fairly and guilt and punishment not assumed because the public, who do not know all of the facts, are baying for it.
The PA is not a victim. She’s just one of thousands of employees employed by RB. She has a grievance and the company is following due process. If they can’t work it out it’ll end up in a tribunal - eventually. If it gets there she’ll win, lose or settle beforehand, but the process has to play out.
If I were the “victim” that was offered €1M to settle, I’d have taken it and got on with my life.
rallycross said:
Did someone touch you in an inappropriate place?
You seem a bit shouty about this none of us know the real facts and things like this happen at work all the time ~ usually one person leaves. All we know is what has been leaked to the press and vanila PR releases that mean nothing.
I am reasonably aware of what happens "at work". It is after all what pays my mortgage. You seem a bit shouty about this none of us know the real facts and things like this happen at work all the time ~ usually one person leaves. All we know is what has been leaked to the press and vanila PR releases that mean nothing.
I am also aware of how the process, including "external" investigations, work. I have done enough of them.
I am also aware that anyone who was in receipt of legal advice would deny those messages if they were untrue. Care to guess how?
Loved CH response to the question from Karun after the GP. When asked if he is thankful he had Max in his team as Checos poor performance basically suggests that Max is the difference he went on to congratulate Carlos as the best driver today. He must be courting the Spaniard for 2025? Would be great to have Carlos in the RB
Durzel said:
Muzzer79 said:
Durzel said:
Jasandjules said:
Durzel said:
Gut feeling is that it's only a big deal in the minds of:
.
Another one who thinks it is fine for a male boss to threaten the job of a female junior who won't pleasure them sexually I see. .
This is a big deal in the mind of anyone with a sense of morality or decency.
If this was your daughter would you be so pleased?
And this is a sport that is supposed to be championing females FFS. How do think this helps?
You can’t prove the messages are legitimate any more than I can prove they’re not. The difference is I’m not condemning someone because I’ve just decided they are.
I mean, think about it - a simple statement saying
“We dispute the authenticity of these messages and have reason to believe they have been fabricated”
Means that it turns from damage control to potentially fake news. That affects the credibility of the story and reduces the public pressure on your (innocent, in this scenario) CEO.
So the question is; if they’re not genuine, why not deny it?
Absence of confirmation does not equal confirmation. They don’t owe it to you to deny the authenticity of the messages, or to mention them at all. After all, the messages haven’t been reported on in detail in the press, none of the outlets are prepared to stand behind them.
Denying the authenticity of the messages to people who already disbelieve the party line achieves nothing. People who already think it’s legitimate and have condemned Horner and the whole process of him being exonerated by a KC - some of whom are in this thread - won’t have their minds changed by RBR/Horner denying their legitimacy.
This is all a confidential matter that happens to be of interest to the public, but it’s not in the public interest. Commenting on the contents of this leak goes against the attitude of keeping the matter confidential, and may prejudice any existing or future legal action.
My point is that it’s in their own PR-interests to deny something so inflammatory if it’s made up.
Their CEO has been made a mockery of in public, with messages showing him to be a sexual creep and sending compromising pics of himself.
There’s been calls for said CEO to step down, suggestions that the FIA look into it, Horner’s name has been dragged through the mud.
If not RB themselves, if you were Horner, why wouldn’t you deny or at least cast doubt on such material if it’s blatantly false?
“I am aware of material that has been circulated to the press purporting to originate from me. I believe this material to be fabricated and am taking legal advice as to my next steps”
Shuts all that down and turns it into potential fake news.
There’s no confidentiality to break - the HR process hasn’t been interfered with, the woman is not mentioned. All he is saying is that the messages are fake.
We don’t (and likely never will) have visibility of all the messages, but the only reason for the Horner camp not to call what we have seen out as inauthentic is if they’re authentic…..
Muzzer79 said:
My point is not that I feel ‘owed’ anything by RB. I don’t feel like they ‘need’ to do anything, or there’s some moral crusade.
My point is that it’s in their own PR-interests to deny something so inflammatory if it’s made up.
Their CEO has been made a mockery of in public, with messages showing him to be a sexual creep and sending compromising pics of himself.
There’s been calls for said CEO to step down, suggestions that the FIA look into it, Horner’s name has been dragged through the mud.
If not RB themselves, if you were Horner, why wouldn’t you deny or at least cast doubt on such material if it’s blatantly false?
“I am aware of material that has been circulated to the press purporting to originate from me. I believe this material to be fabricated and am taking legal advice as to my next steps”
Shuts all that down and turns it into potential fake news.
There’s no confidentiality to break - the HR process hasn’t been interfered with, the woman is not mentioned. All he is saying is that the messages are fake.
We don’t (and likely never will) have visibility of all the messages, but the only reason for the Horner camp not to call what we have seen out as inauthentic is if they’re authentic…..
You still don’t get it. Perhaps you’ve been living under a rock for the last so many years. Responding to allegations made in the press are a waste of time and will always result in lose lose. Ask Prince Andrew whether it was good idea to deny or cast doubt on an allegation of sexual impropriety. I’ll give you a clue, it turned out to be a disaster. My point is that it’s in their own PR-interests to deny something so inflammatory if it’s made up.
Their CEO has been made a mockery of in public, with messages showing him to be a sexual creep and sending compromising pics of himself.
There’s been calls for said CEO to step down, suggestions that the FIA look into it, Horner’s name has been dragged through the mud.
If not RB themselves, if you were Horner, why wouldn’t you deny or at least cast doubt on such material if it’s blatantly false?
“I am aware of material that has been circulated to the press purporting to originate from me. I believe this material to be fabricated and am taking legal advice as to my next steps”
Shuts all that down and turns it into potential fake news.
There’s no confidentiality to break - the HR process hasn’t been interfered with, the woman is not mentioned. All he is saying is that the messages are fake.
We don’t (and likely never will) have visibility of all the messages, but the only reason for the Horner camp not to call what we have seen out as inauthentic is if they’re authentic…..
The best advice in 2024 when it does to tittle tattle is to say nothing because whatever you say will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty. RB is not a Public company. They don’t have to do Jack s
t to appease you or anyone else. If they choose to say nothing and keep their internal affairs in house so be it. maz8062 said:
You still don’t get it. Perhaps you’ve been living under a rock for the last so many years. Responding to allegations made in the press are a waste of time and will always result in lose lose. Ask Prince Andrew whether it was good idea to deny or cast doubt on an allegation of sexual impropriety. I’ll give you a clue, it turned out to be a disaster.
The best advice in 2024 when it does to tittle tattle is to say nothing because whatever you say will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty. RB is not a Public company. They don’t have to do Jack st to appease you or anyone else. If they choose to say nothing and keep their internal affairs in house so be it.
And if people choose to boycott them, to judge them etc based on the best evidence we have that is totally fine too. RB don’t have to show the public anything, but if the public think it is a cover up and so on it’s totally fine to behave in that way too. The best advice in 2024 when it does to tittle tattle is to say nothing because whatever you say will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty. RB is not a Public company. They don’t have to do Jack s
t to appease you or anyone else. If they choose to say nothing and keep their internal affairs in house so be it. Forester1965 said:
Durzel said:
Absence of confirmation does not equal confirmation
You keep saying that as if it's an incontrovertible fact. If untrue the messages would be defamatry. They impact not only his own reputation, but those of his wife, children, employer and their commercial partners, as well the sport itself.
The idea that embarrassing, false, defamatry messages would be allowed to circulate without comment from Horner ignores reality. It also ignores Horner's character. He's a man who'd deny the existence of oxygen if it suited his purpose. He's also very well lawyered up and not short of resources.
Whether we've seen all of them or the appropriate context is open to question. Whether or not they were sent by him, absent a denial (not even a heavily qualified one), almost certainly isn't.
None of what you’ve said requires him or RBR to make public statements to the media about it. Legal action can be explored and taken offline.
I happen to think the fact RBR suspended the “victim” is pretty noteworthy, allegedly for “dishonesty”, but concede that we don’t know if that relates to the leak, or the content in the leak, etc. To my mind it certainly suggests that the whole matter isn’t black and white. Others feel it is, as said, and have passed judgement just based on random unofficial, uncorroborated info they’ve found online.
As said previously I’m prepared to take a view in the fullness of time.
Edited by Durzel on Monday 25th March 06:20
Muzzer79 said:
Durzel said:
Muzzer79 said:
Durzel said:
Jasandjules said:
Durzel said:
Gut feeling is that it's only a big deal in the minds of:
.
Another one who thinks it is fine for a male boss to threaten the job of a female junior who won't pleasure them sexually I see. .
This is a big deal in the mind of anyone with a sense of morality or decency.
If this was your daughter would you be so pleased?
And this is a sport that is supposed to be championing females FFS. How do think this helps?
You can’t prove the messages are legitimate any more than I can prove they’re not. The difference is I’m not condemning someone because I’ve just decided they are.
I mean, think about it - a simple statement saying
“We dispute the authenticity of these messages and have reason to believe they have been fabricated”
Means that it turns from damage control to potentially fake news. That affects the credibility of the story and reduces the public pressure on your (innocent, in this scenario) CEO.
So the question is; if they’re not genuine, why not deny it?
Absence of confirmation does not equal confirmation. They don’t owe it to you to deny the authenticity of the messages, or to mention them at all. After all, the messages haven’t been reported on in detail in the press, none of the outlets are prepared to stand behind them.
Denying the authenticity of the messages to people who already disbelieve the party line achieves nothing. People who already think it’s legitimate and have condemned Horner and the whole process of him being exonerated by a KC - some of whom are in this thread - won’t have their minds changed by RBR/Horner denying their legitimacy.
This is all a confidential matter that happens to be of interest to the public, but it’s not in the public interest. Commenting on the contents of this leak goes against the attitude of keeping the matter confidential, and may prejudice any existing or future legal action.
My point is that it’s in their own PR-interests to deny something so inflammatory if it’s made up.
Their CEO has been made a mockery of in public, with messages showing him to be a sexual creep and sending compromising pics of himself.
There’s been calls for said CEO to step down, suggestions that the FIA look into it, Horner’s name has been dragged through the mud.
If not RB themselves, if you were Horner, why wouldn’t you deny or at least cast doubt on such material if it’s blatantly false?
“I am aware of material that has been circulated to the press purporting to originate from me. I believe this material to be fabricated and am taking legal advice as to my next steps”
Shuts all that down and turns it into potential fake news.
There’s no confidentiality to break - the HR process hasn’t been interfered with, the woman is not mentioned. All he is saying is that the messages are fake.
We don’t (and likely never will) have visibility of all the messages, but the only reason for the Horner camp not to call what we have seen out as inauthentic is if they’re authentic…..
Breathing life into the leak by explicitly talking about it to the press isn’t going to change the minds of people who already believe the contents to be 100% authentic. This thread is decent proof of that - people have decided they are real and are measuring Horner and RBR accordingly.
Do you honestly think they making a statement like that would change opinions on the matter? Would it change yours? I suspect “they would say that” would be a common refrain.
In terms of the reputational damage - where are the leaks being talked about in the mainstream media? There’s no “PR storm” about them. They mentioned it, then basically dropped it as a news story like a hot potato, because none of them could confirm the veracity. It is just mentioned as “leak” with no further context. Really it’s those that found the Google Drive link and others who are extremely online on Twitter et al that are keeping this particular engine running.
BBC, Guardian etc talked about yesterday’s race and had comments from Horner about Sainz and didn’t even mention any of this stuff. They’re starved of new info, so have moved on by and large. This vindicates a “say nothing publicly” strategy.
How different might it be now if Horner or RBR had breathed life into the leak before? It would have encouraged many who had not even heard of the particulars of the leak to go seek it out, and made not one jot of difference to the minds of those that have already condemned him/them.
On a personal note I find it pretty offensive that any cautious attitude towards this whole thing is treated by some as a belief that “sexual harassment is ok by me” and invoking ridiculous strawmen like “how would you feel if it was your daughter” etc. That’s the internet though I guess - binary attitudes. If you’re not saying X you necessarily must be saying Y.
Edited by Durzel on Monday 25th March 06:37
maz8062 said:
You still don’t get it. Perhaps you’ve been living under a rock for the last so many years. Responding to allegations made in the press are a waste of time and will always result in lose lose. Ask Prince Andrew whether it was good idea to deny or cast doubt on an allegation of sexual impropriety. I’ll give you a clue, it turned out to be a disaster.
The best advice in 2024 when it does to tittle tattle is to say nothing because whatever you say will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty. RB is not a Public company. They don’t have to do Jack st to appease you or anyone else. If they choose to say nothing and keep their internal affairs in house so be it.
Prince Andrew made lots of odd and blatantly untrue statements in a public interview format. The best advice in 2024 when it does to tittle tattle is to say nothing because whatever you say will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty. RB is not a Public company. They don’t have to do Jack s
t to appease you or anyone else. If they choose to say nothing and keep their internal affairs in house so be it. All that is being suggested is that CH could have his PR team state that they believe the messages to be fake. It's exactly what any PR would recommend if they weren't real.
Funnily enough, CH has been outright denying "any allegations" against him. So he can deny "any allegations" but he can't make a statement about the veracity of the messages?
It's quite simple. If the messages are real, then making a statement about them being untrue is very risky. If the messages are fake then he has nothing to lose from making a statement to that effect.
I think it's you who is not getting this.
Clever move making the brakes on MV’s car explode to create a different discussion about Red Bull, but of course Toto saw through that and had Hamilton’s engine blow up to show up Horner.
All whilst Sainz had his appendix out do he could win through added lightness, and Russell tried to end it all by driving at a wall. Also something about Jos Verstappen and Suzie Wolf, meanwhile Newey has fitted an air brake to Perez car to prove MV is the fastest.
Am I getting the hang of this F1 conspiracy stuff?
All whilst Sainz had his appendix out do he could win through added lightness, and Russell tried to end it all by driving at a wall. Also something about Jos Verstappen and Suzie Wolf, meanwhile Newey has fitted an air brake to Perez car to prove MV is the fastest.
Am I getting the hang of this F1 conspiracy stuff?
Durzel said:
Forester1965 said:
Durzel said:
Absence of confirmation does not equal confirmation
You keep saying that as if it's an incontrovertible fact. If untrue the messages would be defamatry. They impact not only his own reputation, but those of his wife, children, employer and their commercial partners, as well the sport itself.
The idea that embarrassing, false, defamatry messages would be allowed to circulate without comment from Horner ignores reality. It also ignores Horner's character. He's a man who'd deny the existence of oxygen if it suited his purpose. He's also very well lawyered up and not short of resources.
Whether we've seen all of them or the appropriate context is open to question. Whether or not they were sent by him, absent a denial (not even a heavily qualified one), almost certainly isn't.
None of what you’ve said requires him or RBR to make public statements to the media about it. Legal action can be explored and taken offline.
I happen to think the fact RBR suspended the “victim” is pretty noteworthy, allegedly for “dishonesty”, but concede that we don’t know if that relates to the leak, or the content in the leak, etc. To my mind it certainly suggests that the whole matter isn’t black and white. Others feel it is, as said, and have passed judgement just based on random unofficial, uncorroborated info they’ve found online.
As said previously I’m prepared to take a view in the fullness of time.
Edited by Durzel on Monday 25th March 06:20
I do not want to see him taken out of F1, but I do want to see him be held accountable and unreservedly apologise for being a self-absorbed, vindictive and bullying
. The lack of denial of the messages that fit his persona are, as far as I can see, tantamount to an acceptance of guilt on his part.The VA may not have accepted the $1m on offer due to a previous situation in her life. We do not know. Horner not responding to "stop" may well have brought a past memory to the fore and she is not interested in the money and being fobbed off..., only justice and a stop to predation.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff