Christian Horner
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?
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.
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.
The PA’s friend said they are authentic? Pardon me my monocle has fallen out…Tending to believe something and extrapolating an opinion based on it isn’t really proof of anything besides a bias, really. It is to but expected, of course, but it doesn’t really change anything.
The only people that actually know anything are those that are involved, and the parties to the internal investigation. It seems pointless to express any definitive opinion on it as a layperson when no one outside of these entities is in possession of even any meaningful facts, and what info they do have has reached them via the prism of the press, or people like Jos etc, with agendas.
Edited by Durzel on Sunday 14th April 10:32
DonkeyApple said:
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.
Gazzab said:
DonkeyApple said:
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.
Gazzab said:
You do love to attack. I used the word ‘tend’ for a reason. I don’t want to have to write war n peace each time I post so as to fully qualify my position and not leave myself open to warriors…but here goes. Clearly we don’t know who the friend is, whether the friend is valid, whether they are real messages and/or how the messages might read in the context of the full message set. I tend to believe they are real but like everyone (except those much closer to this) I don’t have the information to reach an informed position as to what, if anything, he is guilty of.
You said you 'tend' to think because of what the 'friend' said. You then go on with the final sentence to suggest that even if found not guilty he would still be guilty. It's not about 'attacking' but just pointing out the absurdness of firstly believing there is a 'friend', then basing an opinion on this existence and finally saying the bloke's still going to be guilty of innocent as it'll all be a cover up. Hardly an attack, just some observations.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff