Christian Horner
Discussion
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.
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?
RB have already said very clearly that both Horner and the woman in question are bound by strict NDAs. Despite that, you wish to ascribe blame based solely on Horner’s failure to do the one thing we know he’s not allowed to? OK…OnDaysLikeThese said:
HocusPocus said:
Mile high club is usually couples abusing the aircraft toilet: do solos count?
If so it has several new members…Popping in for a shufty alone doesn't count. That's like claiming AD21 was...
Never mind
TheDeuce said:
OnDaysLikeThese said:
HocusPocus said:
Mile high club is usually couples abusing the aircraft toilet: do solos count?
If so it has several new members…Popping in for a shufty alone doesn't count. That's like claiming AD21 was...
Never mind
...a damp squib?
skwdenyer said:
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?
RB have already said very clearly that both Horner and the woman in question are bound by strict NDAs. Despite that, you wish to ascribe blame based solely on Horner’s failure to do the one thing we know he’s not allowed to? OK…It's got nothing to do with NDA's.
jm doc said:
skwdenyer said:
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?
RB have already said very clearly that both Horner and the woman in question are bound by strict NDAs. Despite that, you wish to ascribe blame based solely on Horner’s failure to do the one thing we know he’s not allowed to? OK…It's got nothing to do with NDA's.
jm doc said:
skwdenyer said:
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?
RB have already said very clearly that both Horner and the woman in question are bound by strict NDAs. Despite that, you wish to ascribe blame based solely on Horner’s failure to do the one thing we know he’s not allowed to? OK…It's got nothing to do with NDA's.
So I don't ascribe any criticism to CH for not responding to the anonymous leak of Whatsapp material which has neither been verified nor supported by a statement of truth by someone.
People will (and have, on here) conflate an absence of a denial as proof that the thing is true.
For those people a denial probably wouldn’t change much, because they have likely already made up their mind if they think “silence = guilt” anyway. They’d just pivot to “well no smoke without fire” or “well he would say that” or something.
There is nothing to be gained by breathing life into the story in the media, yet quite a lot to lose if it breaks any confidentiality agreement previously signed.
Even if it doesn’t, talking about it to the media just keeps the story going, which is exactly what the media wants. They want oxygen for their fires. As it is with everyone on RB’s side being silent all the media have got for their stories is saying that Horner “is irritated with the questioning”, which isn’t going to drive many clicks.
For those people a denial probably wouldn’t change much, because they have likely already made up their mind if they think “silence = guilt” anyway. They’d just pivot to “well no smoke without fire” or “well he would say that” or something.
There is nothing to be gained by breathing life into the story in the media, yet quite a lot to lose if it breaks any confidentiality agreement previously signed.
Even if it doesn’t, talking about it to the media just keeps the story going, which is exactly what the media wants. They want oxygen for their fires. As it is with everyone on RB’s side being silent all the media have got for their stories is saying that Horner “is irritated with the questioning”, which isn’t going to drive many clicks.
Durzel said:
People will (and have, on here) conflate an absence of a denial as proof that the thing is true.
For those people a denial probably wouldn’t change much, because they have likely already made up their mind if they think “silence = guilt” anyway. They’d just pivot to “well no smoke without fire” or “well he would say that” or something.
There is nothing to be gained by breathing life into the story in the media, yet quite a lot to lose if it breaks any confidentiality agreement previously signed.
Even if it doesn’t, talking about it to the media just keeps the story going, which is exactly what the media wants. They want oxygen for their fires. As it is with everyone on RB’s side being silent all the media have got for their stories is saying that Horner “is irritated with the questioning”, which isn’t going to drive many clicks.
I will quite happily admit I am wrong if I am. To do the opposite would be foolhardy. Most would do the same I presume.For those people a denial probably wouldn’t change much, because they have likely already made up their mind if they think “silence = guilt” anyway. They’d just pivot to “well no smoke without fire” or “well he would say that” or something.
There is nothing to be gained by breathing life into the story in the media, yet quite a lot to lose if it breaks any confidentiality agreement previously signed.
Even if it doesn’t, talking about it to the media just keeps the story going, which is exactly what the media wants. They want oxygen for their fires. As it is with everyone on RB’s side being silent all the media have got for their stories is saying that Horner “is irritated with the questioning”, which isn’t going to drive many clicks.
However, if the evidence we have seen is proved authentic, then I will be vindicated in my (as yet, invalidated) conclusion from such evidence.
PhilAsia said:
I will quite happily admit I am wrong if I am. To do the opposite would be foolhardy. Most would do the same I presume.
However, if the evidence we have seen is proved authentic, then I will be vindicated in my (as yet, invalidated) conclusion from such evidence.
You won't be though as it is only a partial data set from which you cannot logically draw a conclusion only an inference and one which is extremely open to bias. However, if the evidence we have seen is proved authentic, then I will be vindicated in my (as yet, invalidated) conclusion from such evidence.
The leaked messages being true can't prove anything on their own very obviously.
Everyone needs to wait for far more evidence before being able to form any sound reasonings.
Gazzab said:
I dont think that many see a lack of denial as evidence of validity. The PAs friend confirmed to the bbc that they are authentic. So I tend to believe they are real. Maybe we’ll never have formal confirmation as I suspect Horner will dodge this eventually.
It's 'friend' not friend. Why would you for one minute go assuming that all of a sudden a 'friend' who happens to randomly contact the media and have a convo is a lecitine source of evidence?I also 'tend' to believe that they are real but so what? They aren't proof of anything. They are just a bit of the data and a bit of the data that has been selected by one side of the argument so to not assume the likelihood of bias would be immensely silly and naïve. Likewise the whole 'friend says' stuff, what adult is going to fall for that wheeze? The odds of such scenarios ever actually involving a friend are so long that only a professional pub loser who's been banned from all the highstreet bookies would take the bet.
There is nothing at all in the public domain as of yet that would allow anyone to make any valid statement re right or wrong for any of the parties involved other than the senior employee was an absolute idiot to be having any involvement of any level with an office junior and the fact that it transpires to involve a PA is just comedically 20th century sad.
But those claiming to date that one of the parties is innocent or guilty are simply talking out of their arse as there is not a shred of public domain evidence as of yet to back either view. And those wanting to believe a selected nest of messages or the classic 'friend speaks' ruse give clear evidence of one or the other just need to stick to potato printing and soap operas.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff