Christian Horner
Discussion
MarkwG said:
Stop stirring the pot then: I'm certainly not suggesting guilt until proven innocent, that's for a tribunal to decide, if one comes to pass. If you don't want to debate it, it's simple - stop clicking on the thread - otherwise it looks like you're only interested in stifling the discussion, for some reason.
I find it pretty irritating that people are so willing to paint anyone who isn't crucifying him at this point in time as degenerate. It's weak and often performative. It shouldn't be a surprise in this day and age, but it somehow still is.I will take your point though and tune it out.
Durzel said:
MarkwG said:
Stop stirring the pot then: I'm certainly not suggesting guilt until proven innocent, that's for a tribunal to decide, if one comes to pass. If you don't want to debate it, it's simple - stop clicking on the thread - otherwise it looks like you're only interested in stifling the discussion, for some reason.
I find it pretty irritating that people are so willing to paint anyone who isn't crucifying him at this point in time as degenerate. It's weak and often performative. It shouldn't be a surprise in this day and age, but it somehow still is.I will take your point though and tune it out.
The puzzle for many people is that having seen and read the messages, some posters still feel the need to defend CH and many of them make some disturbingly misogynistic comments in doing so. I find that for more reprehensible than casting aspersions on CH's predatory behaviour.
that may not be strictly accurate - we simply don't know. You can't assume something is true because someone doesn't deny it.
Maybe the legal advice, or the marketing advice is to STFU and leave it to the process - that's what I'd be telling everyone.
In fact, I did, yesterday when a customer is publicly trying to pull the tigers tail for clickbait for one of the companies I look after.
Making inflammatory and possibly libelous statements online, tagging the company in and trying to get a response.
It would be very easy to get into a public debate with the cretin, but I can tell they are doing it to try and raise their profile.
So they've been cut off, quietly, behind the scenes and can no longer buy the products which could get them into trouble if they keep doing this silly business. I'm protecting them from themselves.
Silence is often the best approach.........
Maybe the legal advice, or the marketing advice is to STFU and leave it to the process - that's what I'd be telling everyone.
In fact, I did, yesterday when a customer is publicly trying to pull the tigers tail for clickbait for one of the companies I look after.
Making inflammatory and possibly libelous statements online, tagging the company in and trying to get a response.
It would be very easy to get into a public debate with the cretin, but I can tell they are doing it to try and raise their profile.
So they've been cut off, quietly, behind the scenes and can no longer buy the products which could get them into trouble if they keep doing this silly business. I'm protecting them from themselves.
Silence is often the best approach.........
I thought it was the bloody obvious approach Gene.
I was quite surprised at the previous poster who said they had had a lot to say, I thought it was quite the opposite, RB have said v little!
And Forrester, I think the first post in this thread sets the general tone for the view of CH. A long time before the current situation under discussion!
I was quite surprised at the previous poster who said they had had a lot to say, I thought it was quite the opposite, RB have said v little!
And Forrester, I think the first post in this thread sets the general tone for the view of CH. A long time before the current situation under discussion!
The Selfish Gene said:
that may not be strictly accurate - we simply don't know. You can't assume something is true because someone doesn't deny it.
Maybe the legal advice, or the marketing advice is to STFU and leave it to the process - that's what I'd be telling everyone.
In fact, I did, yesterday when a customer is publicly trying to pull the tigers tail for clickbait for one of the companies I look after.
Making inflammatory and possibly libelous statements online, tagging the company in and trying to get a response.
It would be very easy to get into a public debate with the cretin, but I can tell they are doing it to try and raise their profile.
So they've been cut off, quietly, behind the scenes and can no longer buy the products which could get them into trouble if they keep doing this silly business. I'm protecting them from themselves.
Silence is often the best approach.........
I've no idea what these ramblings have to do with messages being presented publicly to the entire world of a Chief Executive apparently behaving as a sexual predator toward a junior employee, who then doesn't deny the messages at any point?Maybe the legal advice, or the marketing advice is to STFU and leave it to the process - that's what I'd be telling everyone.
In fact, I did, yesterday when a customer is publicly trying to pull the tigers tail for clickbait for one of the companies I look after.
Making inflammatory and possibly libelous statements online, tagging the company in and trying to get a response.
It would be very easy to get into a public debate with the cretin, but I can tell they are doing it to try and raise their profile.
So they've been cut off, quietly, behind the scenes and can no longer buy the products which could get them into trouble if they keep doing this silly business. I'm protecting them from themselves.
Silence is often the best approach.........
DeejRC said:
I thought it was the bloody obvious approach Gene.
I was quite surprised at the previous poster who said they had had a lot to say, I thought it was quite the opposite, RB have said v little!
And Forrester, I think the first post in this thread sets the general tone for the view of CH. A long time before the current situation under discussion!
Well where do you think all this stuff about Jos, Marko, power plays, the Thai aspect, all the briefings from "sources" come from? A junior employee???I was quite surprised at the previous poster who said they had had a lot to say, I thought it was quite the opposite, RB have said v little!
And Forrester, I think the first post in this thread sets the general tone for the view of CH. A long time before the current situation under discussion!
jm doc said:
I've no idea what these ramblings have to do with messages being presented publicly to the entire world of a Chief Executive apparently behaving as a sexual predator toward a junior employee, who then doesn't deny the messages at any point?
groundhog day..........once again...... can't believe it's still going on - what a silly thread.Nobody knows if the messages are true. IF they are, it was clearly consensual at some point. They are clearly hand picked to make it look as bad as possible. She made a complaint, it was thrown out. It is being appealed, and the process will take it's due course.
It matters not what weirdos on the internet think.
We (and women) don't need white knights, they can genuinely look after themselves. It's a brave new world.
because it's a very specific set of messages - non of which show anything from the lady in question. Making it look like it was all one way traffic.
The bloke isn't an idiot - there would have been encouragement of some sort, unless it was literally a honey trap in person, and then he was stupid enough to have a one sided conversation.
It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Not saying CH isn't a prick - I'm just saying we don't know the story and should leave it to the experts.
The bloke isn't an idiot - there would have been encouragement of some sort, unless it was literally a honey trap in person, and then he was stupid enough to have a one sided conversation.
It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Not saying CH isn't a prick - I'm just saying we don't know the story and should leave it to the experts.
anonymous_user said:
The Selfish Gene said:
groundhog day..........once again...... can't believe it's still going on - what a silly thread.
whats more silly, a thread going around & around ...or contributing to it causing it to continue to go around & around & then moaning about it?
Must be in the genes
Durzel said:
Change the f
king record will you?
You and others continue to paint anyone who has a circumspect point of view on this as if they’re backwards or even evil.
Hold the presses folks - Jasandjules and co have decided guilt based on unsubstantiated leaks. No need for tribunals. Also any tribunal that might’ve already taken place that resulted in a decision that doesn’t agree with this orthodoxy was biased, predetermined, misogynist, etc. There is only one true opinion!
No one is saying that proven abuses of power should be condoned (if they are they should rightfully be called out). But perhaps you can dare to imagine a world in which people aren’t condemned by the court of public opinion, based only on a Google Drive link. And perhaps one can give tribunals decisions the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence surfaces to call it into question? What a world that would be.
You clearly don't know what a tribunal is. There hasn't been one yet.king record will you?You and others continue to paint anyone who has a circumspect point of view on this as if they’re backwards or even evil.
Hold the presses folks - Jasandjules and co have decided guilt based on unsubstantiated leaks. No need for tribunals. Also any tribunal that might’ve already taken place that resulted in a decision that doesn’t agree with this orthodoxy was biased, predetermined, misogynist, etc. There is only one true opinion!
No one is saying that proven abuses of power should be condoned (if they are they should rightfully be called out). But perhaps you can dare to imagine a world in which people aren’t condemned by the court of public opinion, based only on a Google Drive link. And perhaps one can give tribunals decisions the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence surfaces to call it into question? What a world that would be.
All that has happened so far is the complaint was dismissed by an internal decision, that has been appealed. In Parallel to that the PA has started the process to ask for a tribunal case to be granted. The tribunal process takes a long time just to be accepted, typically 4 months from the date of starting the process to a tribunal deciding if they will hold a case or not. Then you are into evidence submissions and the tribunal legal process itself.
The Selfish Gene said:
because it's a very specific set of messages - non of which show anything from the lady in question. Making it look like it was all one way traffic.
The bloke isn't an idiot - there would have been encouragement of some sort, unless it was literally a honey trap in person, and then he was stupid enough to have a one sided conversation.
It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Not saying CH isn't a prick - I'm just saying we don't know the story and should leave it to the experts.
So basically a man isn’t stupid enough to fall for that sort of thing so it can’t be true? Why do men in powerful decisions get done for this sort of inappropriate behavior pretty frequently then? The bloke isn't an idiot - there would have been encouragement of some sort, unless it was literally a honey trap in person, and then he was stupid enough to have a one sided conversation.
It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Not saying CH isn't a prick - I'm just saying we don't know the story and should leave it to the experts.
NRS said:
So basically a man isn’t stupid enough to fall for that sort of thing so it can’t be true? Why do men in powerful decisions get done for this sort of inappropriate behavior pretty frequently then?
Because young women aren't so attracted to skint older blokes who work for the council? They get done for groping on the bus or molesting goats on allotments due to budgetary constraints. Ones with slightly better credit ratings can rent a Porsche and get a man bangle and branded clothing on credit and release charms at the office party before being offered voluntary redundancy or early retirement in January but actually having proper seniority and actual money is the golden ticket to quim galore. The real question is why they don't rent it like all the others. NRS said:
The Selfish Gene said:
because it's a very specific set of messages - non of which show anything from the lady in question. Making it look like it was all one way traffic.
The bloke isn't an idiot - there would have been encouragement of some sort, unless it was literally a honey trap in person, and then he was stupid enough to have a one sided conversation.
It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Not saying CH isn't a prick - I'm just saying we don't know the story and should leave it to the experts.
So basically a man isn’t stupid enough to fall for that sort of thing so it can’t be true? Why do men in powerful decisions get done for this sort of inappropriate behavior pretty frequently then? The bloke isn't an idiot - there would have been encouragement of some sort, unless it was literally a honey trap in person, and then he was stupid enough to have a one sided conversation.
It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Not saying CH isn't a prick - I'm just saying we don't know the story and should leave it to the experts.
The other 50% would but don't get the chance
95% of all men deny it, especially if caught
DonkeyApple said:
Because young women aren't so attracted to skint older blokes who work for the council? They get done for groping on the bus or molesting goats on allotments due to budgetary constraints. Ones with slightly better credit ratings can rent a Porsche and get a man bangle and branded clothing on credit and release charms at the office party before being offered voluntary redundancy or early retirement in January but actually having proper seniority and actual money is the golden ticket to quim galore. The real question is why they don't rent it like all the others.
Perhaps for the same reason Elon and co seek validation from people - it's not the same if you're paying for it.Durzel said:
DonkeyApple said:
Because young women aren't so attracted to skint older blokes who work for the council? They get done for groping on the bus or molesting goats on allotments due to budgetary constraints. Ones with slightly better credit ratings can rent a Porsche and get a man bangle and branded clothing on credit and release charms at the office party before being offered voluntary redundancy or early retirement in January but actually having proper seniority and actual money is the golden ticket to quim galore. The real question is why they don't rent it like all the others.
Perhaps for the same reason Elon and co seek validation from people - it's not the same if you're paying for it.Maybe Mr Horny should have learned that lesson, rather than playing around with the secretaries.
The Selfish Gene said:
The bloke isn't an idiot - there would have been encouragement of some sort, unless it was literally a honey trap in person, and then he was stupid enough to have a one sided conversation.
It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Whether there was encouragement or not is irrelevant in regards to the fact that he abused his position.It surprises me so many (what I would assume are grown men) haven't had experience of this sort of problem before. Either themselves, colleagues or people they know.
It's quite common in my experience.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff