Christian Horner
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
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.
Durzel 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.
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
Then the claims he was cleared by a QC, no evidence offered to prove his guilt, which someone (and I doubt it was the PA, more likely someone in the inner power struggle) dumped the texts.
There's been lots of, lets call it misdirection rather than blatant lying, to try to whitewash Horny. Thats says mountains.
Byker28i said:
We know RB have been rather economical with the truth. They claimed it was about Horny's management style...trying to downplay the accusation whilst silencing the accuser...
Then the claims he was cleared by a QC, no evidence offered to prove his guilt, which someone (and I doubt it was the PA, more likely someone in the inner power struggle) dumped the texts.
There's been lots of, lets call it misdirection rather than blatant lying, to try to whitewash Horny. Thats says mountains.
Yet every day or two, one of Horny’s many ‘misdirectors’ manages to bump this thread to the top of the forum again, feeding the circular argument once more. Then the claims he was cleared by a QC, no evidence offered to prove his guilt, which someone (and I doubt it was the PA, more likely someone in the inner power struggle) dumped the texts.
There's been lots of, lets call it misdirection rather than blatant lying, to try to whitewash Horny. Thats says mountains.
Edit: it appears we do have an actual update. Papers are reporting that the appeal investigators are preparing to interview the woman complainant next week, as part of her appeal. A new barrister has been appointed to the case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13307095/...
Edited by Sandpit Steve on Sunday 14th April 18:05
PhilAsia said:
Isn't it just as/almost as absurd to believe there is not a friend, when you have no idea if that belief is 100 or zero percent true?
You certainly wouldn't base any sound opinion of the situation using the existence or non existence of the standard Max Clifford 'friend' ruse or it actually being a friend. 
DonkeyApple said:
PhilAsia said:
Isn't it just as/almost as absurd to believe there is not a friend, when you have no idea if that belief is 100 or zero percent true?
You certainly wouldn't base any sound opinion of the situation using the existence or non existence of the standard Max Clifford 'friend' ruse or it actually being a friend. DonkeyApple said:
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.
I’ve set out my position, to save you scrolling up :
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.
Byker28i said:
We know RB have been rather economical with the truth. They claimed it was about Horny's management style...trying to downplay the accusation whilst silencing the accuser...
Sorry if I missed it, but when did RB claim it was about CH's management style? Do you have a source?Gazzab said:
Can’t help yourself can you. Please don’t misquote and exaggerate.
I’ve set out my position, to save you scrolling up :
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.
That's because it's just too easy Gaz and you're attempting to change what you wrote and then imply I was responding to your re-write. I’ve set out my position, to save you scrolling up :
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.
So let's return to basics with what you wrote and what I responded to:
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.
You stayed very clearly that the PA's friend confirmed to the BBC that messages were authentic. It is extremely clear that until I questioned you on this you were of the clear belief that the friend existed and that everything was true. Ergo, you subsequently begin the second sentence with the word 'so' as I this belief is why you tend to feel that they are real. And your final sentence regarding your belief that Horner will dodge this makes it very clear that you have prejudged without evidence.
So you can accuse me of attacking or whatever you like to try and worm out but what you originally wrote is clear as day, my counter that it wouldn't be wise to base anything on the the 'friend' trick as perfected for decades by the likes of Max Clifford is perfectly valid. I'm sorry that you are distressed at this but I'm sure you will eventually come to terms with the horror and devastating life impact of being responded to in a manner which is just so beastly.
trackdemon said:
God this thread has become a tedious cesspit of sniping and oneupmanship
And then some.It's absolutely comical all these keyboard legal experts spouting off when they have about 5% of the information and a pile of pics and correspondence that may (or not be) be genuine, fake or slightly altered.
This thread is right up there with the toxic 45th President thread, with more than some of the ones who are always right and like the sound of their own voice on there having a busmans holiday on here.
They should all get together somewhere for a meet up; that would be a fun event.
I think at this stage of the game it is fair to say it looks like Horner has got away with it, if true obviously.
I can’t believe that someone won’t be forced out though, the power play that has been going on, I believe, has gone too far for everyone to just forget it and move on.
What happens next, and when, will be very interesting.
I can’t believe that someone won’t be forced out though, the power play that has been going on, I believe, has gone too far for everyone to just forget it and move on.
What happens next, and when, will be very interesting.
Megaflow said:
I think at this stage of the game it is fair to say it looks like Horner has got away with it, if true obviously.
I can’t believe that someone won’t be forced out though, the power play that has been going on, I believe, has gone too far for everyone to just forget it and move on.
What happens next, and when, will be very interesting.
I think come sponsor renewal time we'll find out if he's got away with it, in terms of public acceptance. He probably has, most fans probably aren't following the story and don't give a monkeys,if that true, neither will the sponsors.I can’t believe that someone won’t be forced out though, the power play that has been going on, I believe, has gone too far for everyone to just forget it and move on.
What happens next, and when, will be very interesting.
I think you're definitely right about whatever power play is going on behind the scenes. Someone has to win and someone has to lose once war has commenced... And whoever loses ain't gonna hang around or be welcome to hang around.
I think it's more likely we'll see a departure of at least one significant person, or change in ownership, than we will ever know what's actually going on behind the scenes in any sort of detail. I'm fine with that, I actually don't need to know - none of us do!
as long as Redbull keep winning, nobody (sponsors included) will give a s
t.
CH will either lose his job, if they can pin something on him, or he won't if they can't.
Regardless of where the guilt lies - if there is any.
Pretty sure if there was any truth or evidence to it, it would be done by now
t.CH will either lose his job, if they can pin something on him, or he won't if they can't.
Regardless of where the guilt lies - if there is any.
Pretty sure if there was any truth or evidence to it, it would be done by now
Losing CH would destabilise RBR considerably I think. Irrespective of anything else he has been instrumental in getting them to where they are today.
In such a cutthroat industry someone being in that job for as long as he has obviously means he is very good at what he does. There is I suspect a lot more than goes on between race days that the general public are oblivious to, stuff that presumably he is very good at - e.g. marshalling people below him, keeping the various divisions playing nicely together, politicking, etc. He's as important to the team as Newey is, in my opinion.
One could make a convincing argument that his successes & competencies mean that RB would be more inclined - if you will - to give him the benefit of the doubt, or even a one-time "pass", if this is all to be believed, than they would someone else further down the trough. Again, this is just speculation though since no one outside knows the facts.
I would also echo the point above that as long as the team are winning then the sponsors likely won't care, and the ones that make a fuss - performatively or otherwise - would be easily replaced, which I'm sure they know as well.
In such a cutthroat industry someone being in that job for as long as he has obviously means he is very good at what he does. There is I suspect a lot more than goes on between race days that the general public are oblivious to, stuff that presumably he is very good at - e.g. marshalling people below him, keeping the various divisions playing nicely together, politicking, etc. He's as important to the team as Newey is, in my opinion.
One could make a convincing argument that his successes & competencies mean that RB would be more inclined - if you will - to give him the benefit of the doubt, or even a one-time "pass", if this is all to be believed, than they would someone else further down the trough. Again, this is just speculation though since no one outside knows the facts.
I would also echo the point above that as long as the team are winning then the sponsors likely won't care, and the ones that make a fuss - performatively or otherwise - would be easily replaced, which I'm sure they know as well.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff