Christian Horner

[Derek Smith]

Bonefish Blues said:

Ron too controlling, perhaps?

That was my thought.

[Blib]

Wheelspinning said:

As a former officer of the law, your post is disgraceful.

No wonder respect of the Police is at an all time low.

You have made many posts on here about CH, all based on a tiny % of the actual facts.

You do this as 'it's your right, and it's fun'.

Tell me; I posted you might have 5% of the true facts which you said should be discarded.

Your multiple posts are based on what's been released mostly in the media; what % of these media releases do you think are fully accurate?

30%? 50% 95%?

Has the accuser made a statement saying all of these screenshot were released into the domain by her and every single one of them has not been doctored?

You are aware all social media is very, very easily doctored including the 'end to end encrypted' whatsapp?

A good friend many years ago was accused by his step daughter of sexual abuse.

The baying mob that turned up at his house that same weekend torching his car and smashing the house up did so as they thought 'it was their right. Its fun'; just like you posted.

Not so much when the step daughter later admitted she made it up as he refused to let her go to T in the park as she was 13.

I guess that's all fine in your books also because 'in light of circumstances, conclusions can be drawn'.

Well that's just great.

Up here, we have just had the 'Hate Crime' Act forced upon us.

Now, with an allegation, you can be at work, at home or in a restaurant and Police Scotland can come in, caution you, take you in handcuffs to custody and question you based on said allegation.

That is a Draconian act that has been passed, and can have life changing implications, all whilst the accuser can retain anomity.

I do hope you are never on the end of an accusation such as my friend was; however, if you were, you might have a different view of what 'fun' is and how important 'innocent until proven guilty' is.

For the record, I am not a fan of CH or Red Bull.

Spectacular! There's hyperbole and then there's your post.

Congratulations.

[Derek Smith]

Wheelspinning said:

As a former officer of the law, your post is disgraceful.

No wonder respect of the Police is at an all time low.

You have made many posts on here about CH, all based on a tiny % of the actual facts.

You do this as 'it's your right, and it's fun'.

Tell me; I posted you might have 5% of the true facts which you said should be discarded.

Your multiple posts are based on what's been released mostly in the media; what % of these media releases do you think are fully accurate?

30%? 50% 95%?

Has the accuser made a statement saying all of these screenshot were released into the domain by her and every single one of them has not been doctored?

You are aware all social media is very, very easily doctored including the 'end to end encrypted' whatsapp?

A good friend many years ago was accused by his step daughter of sexual abuse.

The baying mob that turned up at his house that same weekend torching his car and smashing the house up did so as they thought 'it was their right. Its fun'; just like you posted.

Not so much when the step daughter later admitted she made it up as he refused to let her go to T in the park as she was 13.

I guess that's all fine in your books also because 'in light of circumstances, conclusions can be drawn'.

Well that's just great.

Up here, we have just had the 'Hate Crime' Act forced upon us.

Now, with an allegation, you can be at work, at home or in a restaurant and Police Scotland can come in, caution you, take you in handcuffs to custody and question you based on said allegation.

That is a Draconian act that has been passed, and can have life changing implications, all whilst the accuser can retain anomity.

I do hope you are never on the end of an accusation such as my friend was; however, if you were, you might have a different view of what 'fun' is and how important 'innocent until proven guilty' is.

For the record, I am not a fan of CH or Red Bull.

On the questionable premise this post is not ironic, I am no longer a police officer, and haven't been for nearly 20 years. I've written all my life, and still do. Did my post give rise to the respect awarded to writers being at an all-time low? Asking for a friend, because I won't value your reply. I was a butcher for a while, and a compositor (printer) and Monotype keyboard operator. What's the respect level for those jobs?

I would suggest that, on any enquiry into an incident, the police never, ever get all the facts. It would be an impossibility. That's a fact. The police draw inferences on what evidence has been accrued, but this is modified as and when new and relevant information arrives. How else could anyone work? It's not fun for the most part, but is worthwhile.

I doubt you have read my books, so your comments are baseless.

Also, Police Scotland is based on a different legal system to that of England/Wales, so the legislation should not be blamed a) on me, or b) on someone who hasn't been a police officer for a couple of months short of 19 years, and in any case, not in Scotland.

Your comment about easy ways to falsify the leak was covered in my post. Read it again and you will see my reasoning. Mind you, you don't give me the feeling that you read what you post.

I think you are overestimating the influence of PH. I doubt many of the 'baying mob' (I dislike those who use clichés. Death's too good for them.) that turned up at your friend's house were encouraged to do so by any posts on here.

You posted the sky-grab figure of 5% with no evidence to support. Yet you criticise me, and others, for basing our comments on the situation given the significant number of circumstances available to us, albeit almost all from the RB side. I feel like setting up an incident room.

Thank you for replying to my post.

[Muzzer79]

Wheelspinning said:

Muzzer79 said:

I think some perspective is required here.

Nobody is turning up at Horner’s door, nor are they accusing him of crimes against the state (or anyone else)

There’s some information now in the public domain that implies he’s behaved very inappropriately with an employee. People have taken this information at face value and discussed it on an internet forum, until more information comes about. (If it ever does)

It’s rather different to the examples you have given.

Your right; it implies he 'may' have behaved inappropriately.

However, until all the facts are available, it's bang out of order to be judge, jury and executioner on here as 'it's fun'.

As soon as the basic rights of 'innocent until proven guilty' are removed, I don't think it's fun.

If people want to poke fun, fair enough, that's their perogative; it's the ones who make the statements of someones full on guilt without actual verified facts and steamroller over anyone else offering an alternative view forgetting there is ALWAYS 3 sides to a story is what i passionately disagree with after seeing what happened to a friend on the basis of an allegation.

Again; nobody is accusing CH of a crime.

It’s speculation about a scandal - a sex scandal at that.

All this talk of ‘innocent unless proven guilty’……if he was up before the beak I could understand it, but we’re talking about him dipping his pen into the company ink when he shouldn’t have, not stabbing someone to death.

I am the first to defend celebrities when they are tried by media in respect of crimes. Someone can easily be destroyed by baseless claims - Matthew Kelly, Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini to name but three.

However, that’s not the case here with Horner.

[trackdemon]

732NM said:

There are things we do know.

1) an employee of RBR has raised a grievance, that grievance was dismissed, that dismissal has been appealed internally.
2) an employee of RBR has raised a complaint with the FIA, so far with no public outcome
3) an employee of RBR has started the process to take CH/RBR to an employment tribunal
4) an employee of RBR has been suspended on full pay
5) an employee of RBR has appointed new lawyers to take matters forward
6) RB Austria wanted rid of CH, the majority owner of RB backed CH, so he remains in post
7) JV wanted rid of CH, publicly saying so, putting at risk MV future with the team
8) HM was under threat of losing his job, but backed by RB Austria and MV has kept it
9) a series of WhatsApp messages were released to the whole of F1 and the wider world which show sexual harassment, these messages have not been denied by CH as real.
10) CH from day 1 has denied all allegations against him
11) CH brought in his wife as a visual aid and then stated that a line is drawn under the issue, it's still ongoing
12) CH dumped his previous partner who was pregnant/had his child for his current wife
13) CH is in dispute with his Neighbours, again
14) CH often talks bks and deflects onto others when he wants an issue to go away, or see's advantage in it
15) the employee who raised the grievance has done everything by the book, following procedures as you would expect someone to do in such circumstances

6: where is that stated as fact?
7: where is that stated as fact?
8: where is that stated as fact?
11: your bias is showing in the disparaging use of 'visual aid'. We don't know why she was there, you're adding your opinion
12: what's that got to do with this case?
13: what's that got to do with this case?
14: your opinion, what's that got to do with this case?
15: as far as we're aware, but not known fact. She may very well be the one that released the texts, we just don't know

Don't misunderstand me, I'm no CH apologist. But if someone is going to elect themselves fact-leader then those facts need to be correct, verifiable & without bias. I'm afraid your list is far from that, IMHO

[Bonefish Blues]

Is 3. a matter of record either, or does it simply mean she's following an internal process at the moment?

[Siao]

trackdemon said:

732NM said:

There are things we do know.

1) an employee of RBR has raised a grievance, that grievance was dismissed, that dismissal has been appealed internally.
2) an employee of RBR has raised a complaint with the FIA, so far with no public outcome
3) an employee of RBR has started the process to take CH/RBR to an employment tribunal
4) an employee of RBR has been suspended on full pay
5) an employee of RBR has appointed new lawyers to take matters forward
6) RB Austria wanted rid of CH, the majority owner of RB backed CH, so he remains in post
7) JV wanted rid of CH, publicly saying so, putting at risk MV future with the team
8) HM was under threat of losing his job, but backed by RB Austria and MV has kept it
9) a series of WhatsApp messages were released to the whole of F1 and the wider world which show sexual harassment, these messages have not been denied by CH as real.
10) CH from day 1 has denied all allegations against him
11) CH brought in his wife as a visual aid and then stated that a line is drawn under the issue, it's still ongoing
12) CH dumped his previous partner who was pregnant/had his child for his current wife
13) CH is in dispute with his Neighbours, again
14) CH often talks bks and deflects onto others when he wants an issue to go away, or see's advantage in it
15) the employee who raised the grievance has done everything by the book, following procedures as you would expect someone to do in such circumstances

6: where is that stated as fact?
7: where is that stated as fact?
8: where is that stated as fact?
11: your bias is showing in the disparaging use of 'visual aid'. We don't know why she was there, you're adding your opinion
12: what's that got to do with this case?
13: what's that got to do with this case?
14: your opinion, what's that got to do with this case?
15: as far as we're aware, but not known fact. She may very well be the one that released the texts, we just don't know

Don't misunderstand me, I'm no CH apologist. But if someone is going to elect themselves fact-leader then those facts need to be correct, verifiable & without bias. I'm afraid your list is far from that, IMHO

I agree with you, questions 11-15 immediately crossed my mind too when reading the first post. We can condense that list to probably half the size.

[Crudeoink]

Why has the F1 subforum and in particular this thread descended into bickering like a NP&E thread?
It's fasincating to see adults get so irate about someone elses opinion of a driver / team principle

[Blib]

If only he had had some principles then none of this would have happened.

[PlywoodPascal]

I blame the parents

[Bonefish Blues]

It's the Principals I blame

[rdjohn]

As another GP approaches, it must be about time for another “friend” to tell the BBC and therefore the rest of the media, just how distraught the complainant is.

[drdel]

rdjohn said:

As another GP approaches, it must be about time for another “friend” to tell the BBC and therefore the rest of the media, just how distraught the complainant is.

And the cure for this distressing 'illness' is £??? mill.

[skwdenyer]

rdjohn said:

As another GP approaches, it must be about time for another “friend” to tell the BBC and therefore the rest of the media, just how distraught the complainant is.

It is notable the BBC F1 page has “curated” their articles so that the latest CH “friend” stuff hasn’t been pushed out by newer pieces.

[Byker28i]

Wheelspinning said:

Anyways, I anticipate your response clearly showing where I have quoted you, made a snide remarks about you, or made a personal attack about you?

Or lets just start with the basics; have I even mentioned Byker28i in my post apart from this one?

I think you hold yourself with a bit too much high regard.

There's only one making snide personal attacks and then pretending they haven't

Wheelspinning said:

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.

But you carry on, I'm out. Congrats for ruining a discussion

[Sandpit Steve]

drdel said:

rdjohn said:

As another GP approaches, it must be about time for another “friend” to tell the BBC and therefore the rest of the media, just how distraught the complainant is.

And the cure for this distressing 'illness' is £??? mill.

Horny and RB wish it could all have been made to go away with money, but the lady concerned appears to want her day in court over taking the cheque.

If she’d taken the money and signed the gag order, we’d probably never have heard of this story.

[Nova Gyna]

Sandpit Steve said:

drdel said:

rdjohn said:

As another GP approaches, it must be about time for another “friend” to tell the BBC and therefore the rest of the media, just how distraught the complainant is.

And the cure for this distressing 'illness' is £??? mill.

Horny and RB wish it could all have been made to go away with money, but the lady concerned appears to want her day in court over taking the cheque.

If she’d taken the money and signed the gag order, we’d probably never have heard of this story.

Perhaps she’s stalling for a bigger settlement as the tribunal approaches, leveraging time in their favour?

[rdjohn]

She has, allegedly, already turned down way more than she might get at an employment tribunal.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/employment-...

This about control of RBR.

[Forester1965]

rdjohn said:

She has, allegedly, already turned down way more than she might get at an employment tribunal.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/employment-...

This about control of RBR.

Discrimination claims in the ET are uncapped.

[Muzzer79]

Nova Gyna said:

Sandpit Steve said:

drdel said:

rdjohn said:

As another GP approaches, it must be about time for another “friend” to tell the BBC and therefore the rest of the media, just how distraught the complainant is.

And the cure for this distressing 'illness' is £??? mill.

Horny and RB wish it could all have been made to go away with money, but the lady concerned appears to want her day in court over taking the cheque.

If she’d taken the money and signed the gag order, we’d probably never have heard of this story.

Perhaps she’s stalling for a bigger settlement as the tribunal approaches, leveraging time in their favour?

She doesn’t need money. She has plenty already

If it was about money, it’d be solved by now