Christian Horner
Discussion
Gazzab said:
Groundhog Day is a great film but I can’t watch it endlessly.
Muzzer79 said:
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.
We've covered this angle already. There is a middle ground here between stating they are fake and stating they are real, which is (as I have iterated several times now) that they are an incomplete (but legitimate) subset of a greater body of evidence that paints a completely different picture of events.To say that they are outright fake denies the ability to later argue that they represent data which may have been tampered with or were elicited under circumstances that expose bad faith actions of one or more persons or parties involved.
I don't need to prove that the above is the case BTW. It only has to be a possibility, but a possibility that is idiotic to ignore or rule out.
maz8062 said:
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?
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 only more people thought this way. 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.
When surrounded by press supposition the best strategy is to keep your powder dry until you can identify the real enemy.
There is nothing to be gained by RBR or Horner engaging in a public spat while the accuser has anonymity and is reportedly burning cash with a US legal team financed by U2.
There is nothing to be gained by RBR or Horner engaging in a public spat while the accuser has anonymity and is reportedly burning cash with a US legal team financed by U2.
drdel said:
When surrounded by press supposition the best strategy is to keep your powder dry until you can identify the real enemy.
There is nothing to be gained by RBR or Horner engaging in a public spat while the accuser has anonymity and is reportedly burning cash with a US legal team financed by U2.
But they already have engaged in the public spat, very vigorously actually, but bizarrely failed to deal with the main accusation which was the texts which detailed CH's apparent sexual predations and which were highly damaging. Are they true or not? There is nothing to be gained by RBR or Horner engaging in a public spat while the accuser has anonymity and is reportedly burning cash with a US legal team financed by U2.
We've had thousands of words from Horner and his lackeys in this "public spat", both on the record and off the record, but actually the one word that was all that was needed was yes or no? True or false?
Deathly silence.
jm doc said:
yes or no? True or false?
Or.... tainted and we're not yet telling you how we know because someone is relying on everyone believing they present an accurate version of events in order to win against us.Dishonesty is a serious accusation to level at someone if you don't have evidence to back it, and if you do you don't go giving your opposition a chance to cover their tracks or get ahead of any cracks in their defence...
jm doc said:
Deathly silence.
...or start handing grenades to other third parties (teams) who would benefit indirectly from you having to fight on several fronts.Is that 'I've Got You Babe' I hear playing again...?
Edited by Evercross on Monday 25th March 18:26
jm doc said:
But they already have engaged in the public spat, very vigorously actually, but bizarrely failed to deal with the main accusation which was the texts which detailed CH's apparent sexual predations and which were highly damaging. Are they true or not?
We've had thousands of words from Horner and his lackeys in this "public spat", both on the record and off the record, but actually the one word that was all that was needed was yes or no? True or false?
Deathly silence.
While the legal teams butt heads nobody is going to give a flying fig about silly spats in online forums so you can keep all the opinions and CH insults fully fuelled. We've had thousands of words from Horner and his lackeys in this "public spat", both on the record and off the record, but actually the one word that was all that was needed was yes or no? True or false?
Deathly silence.
drdel said:
jm doc said:
But they already have engaged in the public spat, very vigorously actually, but bizarrely failed to deal with the main accusation which was the texts which detailed CH's apparent sexual predations and which were highly damaging. Are they true or not?
We've had thousands of words from Horner and his lackeys in this "public spat", both on the record and off the record, but actually the one word that was all that was needed was yes or no? True or false?
Deathly silence.
While the legal teams butt heads nobody is going to give a flying fig about silly spats in online forums so you can keep all the opinions and CH insults fully fuelled. We've had thousands of words from Horner and his lackeys in this "public spat", both on the record and off the record, but actually the one word that was all that was needed was yes or no? True or false?
Deathly silence.
World-wide coverage- "silly spats in online forums"
So Horner and his team have kept silent.
The ONLY thing they've kept quiet on is the texts. As I said, deathly silence, because he can't deny them
Maybe this isn't the thread for you?
Evercross said:
jm doc said:
yes or no? True or false?
Or.... tainted and we're not yet telling you how we know because someone is relying on everyone believing they present an accurate version of events in order to win against us.Dishonesty is a serious accusation to level at someone if you don't have evidence to back it, and if you do you don't go giving your opposition a chance to cover their tracks or get ahead of any cracks in their defence...
jm doc said:
Deathly silence.
...or start handing grenades to other third parties (teams) who would benefit indirectly from you having to fight on several fronts.Is that 'I've Got You Babe' I hear playing again...?
Edited by Evercross on Monday 25th March 18:26
jm doc said:
I think that's the most delusional comment I've seen in this whole thread. Just epic
World-wide coverage- "silly spats in online forums"
So Horner and his team have kept silent.
The ONLY thing they've kept quiet on is the texts. As I said, deathly silence, because he can't deny them
Maybe this isn't the thread for you?
If you'd like to see delusional a mirror might be an excellent place to start. World-wide coverage- "silly spats in online forums"
So Horner and his team have kept silent.
The ONLY thing they've kept quiet on is the texts. As I said, deathly silence, because he can't deny them
Maybe this isn't the thread for you?
Derek Smith said:
I wonder if they'll be just as dismissive about silly spats on national newspapers. Today's Guardian.
Once it gets to the ET the poo will be hitting spinning blades................ If Red Bull have indeed swept this under the carpet, well.. The other interesting point of course (well ok maybe just to me) is that whilst the PA has been suspended we have heard nothing further. An action against her should have been undertaken swiftly with an outcome provided...
If it goes to ET it buys time. Plenty of time to buy the team and then he won't give a toss what people think. Going by recent history the FIA seem unlikely to care, either.
It'll just be a few more weeks of lurid headlines and quotes from 'friends of Geri' saying how much of a trooper she's been from the destitution of her Cotswold pad/mates private jet/gardner's shed with the hired help.
It'll just be a few more weeks of lurid headlines and quotes from 'friends of Geri' saying how much of a trooper she's been from the destitution of her Cotswold pad/mates private jet/gardner's shed with the hired help.
Derek Smith said:
I wonder if they'll be just as dismissive about silly spats on national newspapers. Today's Guardian.
Whereabouts in The Guardian?Not on the home page (although there is an article about "how a Scottish lesbian lifeguard drama is changing TV" - is it a Scottish drama, a Scottish lesbian or a Scottish lifeguard?
)Not on the Sports page (only obvious F1 article regarding Red Bull is about a burning brake assembly).
Ah, found it on the F1 sub-page. This quote seems particularly salient...
Grauniad said:
Legal experts say such a move would simply follow an anticipated process. “It’s like a roadmap, these are the stops along the way,” said Tania Goodman, the head of employment and a partner at the law firm Collyer Bristow. “If an employee has a complaint or grievance, they raise it internally, perhaps informally at first but if it’s not resolved then it becomes formal and is investigated and considered, usually as part of a grievance hearing after which an outcome is given.
So, not news and no new comment from any of the parties involved. Just an opinion piece from a random legal talking head telling us that there is a procedure that would most likely be followed.How insightful.
Jasandjules said:
Derek Smith said:
I wonder if they'll be just as dismissive about silly spats on national newspapers. Today's Guardian.
Once it gets to the ET the poo will be hitting spinning blades................ If Red Bull have indeed swept this under the carpet, well.. The other interesting point of course (well ok maybe just to me) is that whilst the PA has been suspended we have heard nothing further. An action against her should have been undertaken swiftly with an outcome provided...
Although if it was about money, one assumes that would have been arranged by now.
If she is a pawn in a power play (which I think she is) maybe Red Bull can’t buy their way out of it which leaves an ET as the only place to go.
But then why choose to suspend her? An ET would take a dim view of suspending her but not him.
I still think this will only be resolved when one of the protagonists is left with no chair after the music stops. That’s Horner, Marko, Verstappen(s) or Mintzlaff.
Forester1965 said:
Pawn? Her case has probably been used by others for their own purpose but, perhaps, there are some out there who have principles and are simply looking for recognition their boss is a filthy letch?
I don’t doubt that she has a genuine grievance.But if it wasn’t part of a bigger picture, I think it would have been settled by now.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff