Christian Horner
Discussion
maz8062 said:
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. Shame Prince Andrew didn't have a glove. Nor does Horner, does he?
spookly said:
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.
maz8062 said:
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. Kate Middleton - wild, fabricated rumours surrounding theories about why she was in hospital and out of the public eye. Did she just say nothing because they "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
Russell Brand - faced with sexual misconduct allegations (criminal, at that) Did he just say nothing because he "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
In the F1 world itself, Susie Wolff was alleged to have shared confidential FOM information to an F1 team principal. Did she just say nothing because she "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you've done it: You say nothing until you're ready to implement damage control (a strategy of which can be continuing to say nothing)
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you haven't done it: Unless it's a completely wild rumour that everyone knows is impossible to be true; you reveal that it's been fabricated, at least in order to lessen the credibility of the person who is the accuser.
Red Bull don't have to follow the above. Horner doesn't have to follow the above. As you rightly point out, RB is not a public company so they don't answer to anyone.
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
Jasandjules said:
None of the above apply I am afraid. I am just a person who thinks that when people are creepy sexual harassers who abuse their power, something shoul be done.
Which isn't remotely relevant as that is how all normal adults would think so trying to use that as some strange means to elevate yourself above others is going to get you called out. This isn't about whether that behaviour is bad or not but about whether that behaviour occurred. Two totally different and unrelated things and trying to conflate the two for gain is poor form.
Kate Middleton is a bit of a silly example because she is not remotely comparable to CH in terms of press & public scrutiny. She is pretty much the gold standard.
And she/The Palace did try to keep a lid on what is an intensely private matter for several days until it became impossible to continue, again due to press & public speculation.
Since we're just going in circles on the whole "if they aren't denied they must therefore be true" debate, I'd just say the fact people positing this have already made up their minds really just cements it in my head that there is basically nothing to gain from breathing life into it by explicitly denying it. They wouldn't change the minds of those who have already decided they're authentic (they would just shift to "well there's no smoke without fire" and carry on damning him/RBR), and they would merely shine a light on something that neither the media or general public as a whole is talking about.
In an ideal world we'd know definitively one way or the other what the score is, and be able to make educated, informed judgements. As it is - everyone is just speculating, some have passed judgement based on it, others are more circumspect.
And she/The Palace did try to keep a lid on what is an intensely private matter for several days until it became impossible to continue, again due to press & public speculation.
Since we're just going in circles on the whole "if they aren't denied they must therefore be true" debate, I'd just say the fact people positing this have already made up their minds really just cements it in my head that there is basically nothing to gain from breathing life into it by explicitly denying it. They wouldn't change the minds of those who have already decided they're authentic (they would just shift to "well there's no smoke without fire" and carry on damning him/RBR), and they would merely shine a light on something that neither the media or general public as a whole is talking about.
In an ideal world we'd know definitively one way or the other what the score is, and be able to make educated, informed judgements. As it is - everyone is just speculating, some have passed judgement based on it, others are more circumspect.
NRS said:
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.
To boycott RB one would need to be a customer of RB. Given the RB customer base it seems unlikely they'd be rushing to boycott a bit of what looks like outdated, misogynistic, council alpha behaviour? This is not a sophisticated brand but a brand using sport to seek to gloss over the absence via the association of faux aspirational class. It's a brand that conjures the image of an Andrew Tate type lobbing an empty cab out the window at a girl than the Right Hon Reverend Wrighton placing it in the correct recycling bin. Arguably the real brand risk is that a large number of customers become sentient to what is thought of the average red bull brand ambassador and that the veneer being purchased via F1 stops working.
Muzzer79 said:
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
Who is talking about this whole affair now? Beyond this thread where is it really dominating the news cycle? I just Googled "Christian Horner" and there was only one news article that alluded to it, talking about Guenther Steiner being asked about whether he'd be up for Horner's job, the rest was about the most recent race (Verstappen DNF), his comments about Sainz coming to RB, etc. It isn't trending on Twitter, etc.People emotionally invested in this have a very distorted perception of how pervasive the reporting is on this. To my eyes it's basically petered out.
Tell me how this doesn't vindicate the approach Horner & RB have taken with it?
Muzzer79 said:
Let's refer to some recent media events and see who's been living under a rock.....
Kate Middleton - wild, fabricated rumours surrounding theories about why she was in hospital and out of the public eye. Did she just say nothing because they "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
Russell Brand - faced with sexual misconduct allegations (criminal, at that) Did he just say nothing because he "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
In the F1 world itself, Susie Wolff was alleged to have shared confidential FOM information to an F1 team principal. Did she just say nothing because she "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you've done it: You say nothing until you're ready to implement damage control (a strategy of which can be continuing to say nothing)
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you haven't done it: Unless it's a completely wild rumour that everyone knows is impossible to be true; you reveal that it's been fabricated, at least in order to lessen the credibility of the person who is the accuser.
Red Bull don't have to follow the above. Horner doesn't have to follow the above. As you rightly point out, RB is not a public company so they don't answer to anyone.
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
What exactly is this accusation? All that RB have admitted is that an employee has accused CH of inappropriate behaviour. That’s it. What are you expecting him to refute? The Telegraf article? The Business F1 article. What? The unnamed WhatsApp messages? Kate Middleton - wild, fabricated rumours surrounding theories about why she was in hospital and out of the public eye. Did she just say nothing because they "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
Russell Brand - faced with sexual misconduct allegations (criminal, at that) Did he just say nothing because he "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
In the F1 world itself, Susie Wolff was alleged to have shared confidential FOM information to an F1 team principal. Did she just say nothing because she "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you've done it: You say nothing until you're ready to implement damage control (a strategy of which can be continuing to say nothing)
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you haven't done it: Unless it's a completely wild rumour that everyone knows is impossible to be true; you reveal that it's been fabricated, at least in order to lessen the credibility of the person who is the accuser.
Red Bull don't have to follow the above. Horner doesn't have to follow the above. As you rightly point out, RB is not a public company so they don't answer to anyone.
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
If CH responds to any of these articles he’ll be opening a can of worms that will never end. All those that need to know, know. The rest is just noise.
Muzzer79 said:
Let's refer to some recent media events and see who's been living under a rock.....
Kate Middleton - wild, fabricated rumours surrounding theories about why she was in hospital and out of the public eye. Did she just say nothing because they "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
Russell Brand - faced with sexual misconduct allegations (criminal, at that) Did he just say nothing because he "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
In the F1 world itself, Susie Wolff was alleged to have shared confidential FOM information to an F1 team principal. Did she just say nothing because she "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you've done it: You say nothing until you're ready to implement damage control (a strategy of which can be continuing to say nothing)
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you haven't done it: Unless it's a completely wild rumour that everyone knows is impossible to be true; you reveal that it's been fabricated, at least in order to lessen the credibility of the person who is the accuser.
Red Bull don't have to follow the above. Horner doesn't have to follow the above. As you rightly point out, RB is not a public company so they don't answer to anyone.
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
What exactly is this accusation? All that RB have admitted is that an employee has accused CH of inappropriate behaviour. That’s it. What are you expecting him to refute? The Telegraf article? The Business F1 article. What? The unnamed WhatsApp messages? Kate Middleton - wild, fabricated rumours surrounding theories about why she was in hospital and out of the public eye. Did she just say nothing because they "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
Russell Brand - faced with sexual misconduct allegations (criminal, at that) Did he just say nothing because he "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
In the F1 world itself, Susie Wolff was alleged to have shared confidential FOM information to an F1 team principal. Did she just say nothing because she "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you've done it: You say nothing until you're ready to implement damage control (a strategy of which can be continuing to say nothing)
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you haven't done it: Unless it's a completely wild rumour that everyone knows is impossible to be true; you reveal that it's been fabricated, at least in order to lessen the credibility of the person who is the accuser.
Red Bull don't have to follow the above. Horner doesn't have to follow the above. As you rightly point out, RB is not a public company so they don't answer to anyone.
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
If CH responds to any of these articles he’ll be opening a can of worms that will never end. All those that need to know, know. The rest is just noise.
Durzel said:
People emotionally invested in this have a very distorted perception of how pervasive the reporting is on this. To my eyes it's basically petered out.
We covered this a few pages back. The people who think this is still top-of-the-search-engine news are the people who have identified themselves to the various algorithms as the people to target news, gossip and bot-generated clickbait at to give them confirmation bias.That isn't conspiracy theory BTW. I actually put it to the test using a commercial IP address (ie. a premium internet connection that is not making additional money from its users via targeted advertising) and anonymous browsing with Ad Filtering and no-tracking scripts.
I'll try it again...
Current top F1 stories are Verstappen's retirement from Aus GP, George Russel's crash and Danny Ric's racing overalls being on a shaky peg.
Durzel said:
Muzzer79 said:
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
Who is talking about this whole affair now? Beyond this thread where is it really dominating the news cycle? I just Googled "Christian Horner" and there was only one news article that alluded to it, talking about Guenther Steiner being asked about whether he'd be up for Horner's job, the rest was about the most recent race (Verstappen DNF), his comments about Sainz coming to RB, etc. It isn't trending on Twitter, etc.People emotionally invested in this have a very distorted perception of how pervasive the reporting is on this. To my eyes it's basically petered out.
Tell me how this doesn't vindicate the approach Horner & RB have taken with it?
https://www.gbnews.com/sport/f1/christian-horner-b...
https://www.gbnews.com/sport/f1/christian-horner-a...
https://www.gbnews.com/sport/f1/geri-halliwell-abs...
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/geri-hall...
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/formula-one/austr...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/23/red-...
Even Hello - https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/515936/geri-ha...
maz8062 said:
Muzzer79 said:
Let's refer to some recent media events and see who's been living under a rock.....
Kate Middleton - wild, fabricated rumours surrounding theories about why she was in hospital and out of the public eye. Did she just say nothing because they "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
Russell Brand - faced with sexual misconduct allegations (criminal, at that) Did he just say nothing because he "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
In the F1 world itself, Susie Wolff was alleged to have shared confidential FOM information to an F1 team principal. Did she just say nothing because she "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you've done it: You say nothing until you're ready to implement damage control (a strategy of which can be continuing to say nothing)
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you haven't done it: Unless it's a completely wild rumour that everyone knows is impossible to be true; you reveal that it's been fabricated, at least in order to lessen the credibility of the person who is the accuser.
Red Bull don't have to follow the above. Horner doesn't have to follow the above. As you rightly point out, RB is not a public company so they don't answer to anyone.
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
What exactly is this accusation? All that RB have admitted is that an employee has accused CH of inappropriate behaviour. That’s it. What are you expecting him to refute? The Telegraf article? The Business F1 article. What? The unnamed WhatsApp messages? Kate Middleton - wild, fabricated rumours surrounding theories about why she was in hospital and out of the public eye. Did she just say nothing because they "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
Russell Brand - faced with sexual misconduct allegations (criminal, at that) Did he just say nothing because he "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
In the F1 world itself, Susie Wolff was alleged to have shared confidential FOM information to an F1 team principal. Did she just say nothing because she "will never satisfy those that have already decided that you’re guilty"? No
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you've done it: You say nothing until you're ready to implement damage control (a strategy of which can be continuing to say nothing)
If someone accuses you of something publicly, it's damaging and you haven't done it: Unless it's a completely wild rumour that everyone knows is impossible to be true; you reveal that it's been fabricated, at least in order to lessen the credibility of the person who is the accuser.
Red Bull don't have to follow the above. Horner doesn't have to follow the above. As you rightly point out, RB is not a public company so they don't answer to anyone.
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
If CH responds to any of these articles he’ll be opening a can of worms that will never end. All those that need to know, know. The rest is just noise.
If that is the case, I would expect Horner to come out and say so when the story broke. It's too late now, but if someone releases a bomb on your private and professional life like that, in public and the material released is made up - you say it's made up.
I'm not expecting him to respond to any specific articles by any specific publication, nor to publicly respond in detail regarding the accusations made against him.
Byker28i said:
Durzel said:
Muzzer79 said:
However, it's mystifyingly bad PR not to follow the above, so it therefore begs the question why they're not.
Who is talking about this whole affair now? Beyond this thread where is it really dominating the news cycle? I just Googled "Christian Horner" and there was only one news article that alluded to it, talking about Guenther Steiner being asked about whether he'd be up for Horner's job, the rest was about the most recent race (Verstappen DNF), his comments about Sainz coming to RB, etc. It isn't trending on Twitter, etc.People emotionally invested in this have a very distorted perception of how pervasive the reporting is on this. To my eyes it's basically petered out.
Tell me how this doesn't vindicate the approach Horner & RB have taken with it?
https://www.gbnews.com/sport/f1/christian-horner-b...
https://www.gbnews.com/sport/f1/christian-horner-a...
https://www.gbnews.com/sport/f1/geri-halliwell-abs...
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/geri-hall...
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/formula-one/austr...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/23/red-...
Even Hello - https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/515936/geri-ha...
Of that list only The Guardian is really noteworthy, the rest are basically regurgitating what little they already know. Even The Grauniad have only dedicated 2 whole short paragraphs to the matter with the article as a whole talking in the broader context of "issues with the sport". The Independent article is a week old, which kinda proves my point.
But I take your point - some choice media outlets are trying to keep the clickbait dream alive.
Byker28i said:
Yup, whilst it's dropped out the main stream and F1 sites we still have the grubby lot trying to rake the coals, but then now we have another crash/crashgate to distract them
I thought Australia would be RB limit. Looks like they might weather this out
Grubby?I thought Australia would be RB limit. Looks like they might weather this out
That'd be Horner and his behaviour.
Byker28i said:
Yup, whilst it's dropped out the main stream and F1 sites we still have the grubby lot trying to rake the coals, but then now we have another crash/crashgate to distract them
I thought Australia would be RB limit. Looks like they might weather this out
Andrew Benson, on BBC yesterday: "The twin controversies revolving around the accusations regarding Red Bull team principal Christian Horner's behaviour towards a female employee, and FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem's interference in race operations, have very much not gone away - they dominated conversations in the Melbourne paddock over the weekend."I thought Australia would be RB limit. Looks like they might weather this out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/68649296
Muzzer79 said:
A poster yesterday said that he thought there was a chance that the WhatsApp messages were not authentic - i.e fabricated.
If that is the case, I would expect Horner to come out and say so when the story broke. It's too late now, but if someone releases a bomb on your private and professional life like that, in public and the material released is made up - you say it's made up.
I'm not expecting him to respond to any specific articles by any specific publication, nor to publicly respond in detail regarding the accusations made against him.
Ordinarily I’d agree with you, but in this day and age of 24 hr news, twisting words, me too, folk with axes to grind and CH’s numerous enemies, merely acknowledging the messages could be difficult for him and lose lose. Say he comes out and says they’re not him, but they are, he’s opened a can of words which one could add lying to. What about his wife? If that is the case, I would expect Horner to come out and say so when the story broke. It's too late now, but if someone releases a bomb on your private and professional life like that, in public and the material released is made up - you say it's made up.
I'm not expecting him to respond to any specific articles by any specific publication, nor to publicly respond in detail regarding the accusations made against him.
By saying nothing folk can’t pin anything on him and if he ignores it long enough it’ll just go away. Best to deny deny deny until proven otherwise.
Muzzer79 said:
A poster yesterday said that he thought there was a chance that the WhatsApp messages were not authentic - i.e fabricated.
If that is the case, I would expect Horner to come out and say so when the story broke. It's too late now, but if someone releases a bomb on your private and professional life like that, in public and the material released is made up - you say it's made up.
I'm not expecting him to respond to any specific articles by any specific publication, nor to publicly respond in detail regarding the accusations made against him.
If that is the case, I would expect Horner to come out and say so when the story broke. It's too late now, but if someone releases a bomb on your private and professional life like that, in public and the material released is made up - you say it's made up.
I'm not expecting him to respond to any specific articles by any specific publication, nor to publicly respond in detail regarding the accusations made against him.
maz8062 said:
Ordinarily I’d agree with you, but in this day and age of 24 hr news, twisting words, me too, folk with axes to grind and CH’s numerous enemies, merely acknowledging the messages could be difficult for him and lose lose.
This is seemingly their strategy - don't complain, don't explain. Stiff upper lip. maz8062 said:
By saying nothing folk can’t pin anything on him and if he ignores it long enough it’ll just go away. Best to deny deny deny until proven otherwise.
He's not denying it - he's not acknowledging it at all. He has a right to do that and not admitting something doesn't mean acceptance of it. However, it's a strange strategy, if the Whatsapp messages are fake, to not come out and say they're fake as it's an easy gain to inflict credibility doubt on the material. maz8062 said:
Say he comes out and says they’re not him, but they are, he’s opened a can of words which one could add lying to.
Lying about the authenticity of the messages is not a good move and is one that would likely lead to further damage. I have not suggested that he do this.maz8062 said:
What about his wife?
What about her? 
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff