Christian Horner
Discussion
davidd said:
That's going to hurt. Not being allowed to go to one's spiritual home. 
anonymous_user said:
& stop means stop
& stop means, you dont take umbrage & start making my job more difficult
& stop means you dont start making my job more difficult, to the point you think i should take another 'option'
there is only one person in those messages who seems to be struggling with maintaining a working relationship & a professional one, regardless of their previous- to the point that the other party feels uncomfortable enough to start snapshotting their convo's to cover their arse because they fear you're going to be a
to them
I don’t understand how an intimate conversation would develop for so long if she was not interested. She even jokes about going to his hotel room!!! & stop means, you dont take umbrage & start making my job more difficult
& stop means you dont start making my job more difficult, to the point you think i should take another 'option'
there is only one person in those messages who seems to be struggling with maintaining a working relationship & a professional one, regardless of their previous- to the point that the other party feels uncomfortable enough to start snapshotting their convo's to cover their arse because they fear you're going to be a
to themThe proof that she was or is trying to play the victim is the fact that she leaked the conversations!!! If this event turns into a judicial hearing, the first thing she will be asked is: “Why have leaked a private conversation?”
Or maybe, playing devil’s advocate: Horner is indeed at fault and he himself leaked the conversation so to discredit her…
Kart16 said:
I don’t understand how an intimate conversation would develop for so long if she was not interested. She even jokes about going to his hotel room!!!
The proof that she was or is trying to play the victim is the fact that she leaked the conversations!!! If this event turns into a judicial hearing, the first thing she will be asked is: “Why have leaked a private conversation?”
Or maybe, playing devil’s advocate: Horner is indeed at fault and he himself leaked the conversation so to discredit her…
They're not saying she was *never* interested. Just that she changed her mind and was then not interested.The proof that she was or is trying to play the victim is the fact that she leaked the conversations!!! If this event turns into a judicial hearing, the first thing she will be asked is: “Why have leaked a private conversation?”
Or maybe, playing devil’s advocate: Horner is indeed at fault and he himself leaked the conversation so to discredit her…
And, even if she was, he's still a married bloke and she's still an employee and the suggestion she can essentially find another job if she's not happy with it is dodgy AF.
PlywoodPascal said:
Question regarding the last senescence of this post.
Does having once consented to something mean you can never later refuse consent, and does it justify others persistently continuing to request consent in light of refusal of it?
I would say no. Hence the fact that ‘a lot of it’ may have been consensual is literally an irrelevance once some of it is not.
No of course it doesn't. The chronological order of the screen shots isn't clear but strongly suggests (to me, other opinions are available) that she continued to flirt with back with him several times after asking him to stop. It gives the impression that the stop start nature is part of the power play going on in their flirting.Does having once consented to something mean you can never later refuse consent, and does it justify others persistently continuing to request consent in light of refusal of it?
I would say no. Hence the fact that ‘a lot of it’ may have been consensual is literally an irrelevance once some of it is not.
Without seeing the full conversation I'm going to reserve judgement on the exact context of it all. The screen shots originated from the complainant, why would they provide anything other than the parts which paint Horner in the worst light? And beyond the messages there's also clearly a lot more going on at RBR which appears likely to be related and to me pours doubt on the veracity of the visible conversation.
And I'm no CH fan, nor Red Bull. Just trying to be pragmatic about it. It's likely he did the dirty on his wife (and even that's based on the on the assumption they didn't have an open relationship), and it's clear his sext game is poor, but beyond that I'm going to reserve judgement.
Kart16 said:
PlywoodPascal said:
A bit like your god-given talent for posting poorly thought out nonsense I suppose.
Ask your girlfriend, sister, etc., if she would carry on for weeks this kind of intimate conversations if she was not interested or felt it offensive. Edited by Bonefish Blues on Monday 4th March 11:04
anonymous_user said:
then the simplest solution would be show everyone who thought you were a pest, your complete & unselective messages
i would hazard a guess CH will not be doing the above
He can't, he deleted them. Anyone who's seen the leaked screenshot can see that. He probably regrets doing that at this point.i would hazard a guess CH will not be doing the above
Kart16 said:
PlywoodPascal said:
A bit like your god-given talent for posting poorly thought out nonsense I suppose.
Ask your girlfriend, sister, etc., if she would carry on for weeks this kind of intimate conversations if she was not interested or felt it offensive. And she's not 'playing the victim', she is the victim. This became the case when she made it clear she wanted it to stop and he continued to pester her.
He's in a position of power over her, and uses his position of power to get her to delete their chat history, tries to get her to leave her role, tries to control who she is friends with and so on.
Purosangue said:
nickfrog said:
Purosangue said:
Art Keller said:
Purosangue said:
Never under estimate the power of alcohol
i look great in these jeans
Altrezia said:
They're not saying she was *never* interested. Just that she changed her mind and was then not interested.
And, even if she was, he's still a married bloke and she's still an employee and the suggestion she can essentially find another job if she's not happy with it is dodgy AF.
If she changed her mind, fair enough, but why leaking the conversation? If I were her, I would get a lawyer and only present these WhatsApp print screens in court. And, even if she was, he's still a married bloke and she's still an employee and the suggestion she can essentially find another job if she's not happy with it is dodgy AF.
davidd said:
So this will be the second known instance in which Jos is forbidden by Red Bull to enter the paddock. Edited by Kart16 on Monday 4th March 11:29
Kart16 said:
Altrezia said:
They're not saying she was *never* interested. Just that she changed her mind and was then not interested.
And, even if she was, he's still a married bloke and she's still an employee and the suggestion she can essentially find another job if she's not happy with it is dodgy AF.
If she changed her mind, fair enough, but why leaking the conversation? If I were her, I would get a lawyer and only present these WhatsApp print screens in court. And, even if she was, he's still a married bloke and she's still an employee and the suggestion she can essentially find another job if she's not happy with it is dodgy AF.
Kart16 said:
Come on, just look at the WhatsApp print screens (assuming they are not fake), the female was not only very engaging in the conversation but also was pretty much enjoying it!
Yes, she was....., until the point where she wasn't enjoying it - that is when you immediately stop! Women need to be extremely careful around people that don't. So, you "come on" and learn to recognise when "no" means "no". Women will be better off for it....., really!!Kart16 said:
If she changed her mind, fair enough, but why leaking the conversation?
I think it is looking more and more likely it wasn't her behind the latest leak and there are more and more people who know that or are coming to that conclusion.People sniffed a Jos Verstappen hatchet job on this before, and now the stink is permeating the paddock. Jos the toss has overplayed his hand to the point it is now potentially damaging the future prospects of his son/the current WDC.
Bonefish Blues said:
Kart16 said:
PlywoodPascal said:
A bit like your god-given talent for posting poorly thought out nonsense I suppose.
Ask your girlfriend, sister, etc., if she would carry on for weeks this kind of intimate conversations if she was not interested or felt it offensive. mjb1 said:
No, he clearly deleted the entire conversation history.
Wheres the proof of this? You keep repeating this claim.Horner has remained tight lipped about this merely saying he can't say anything for legal reasons. There's been nothing about him deleting messages apart from PH speculation?
Which is probably why
Bonefish Blues said:
I've got a suspicion she might already have a lawyer.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff