Christian Horner
Discussion
Victor.Lee said:
Oh.... so you want to go that route that the KC essentially did not even investigate the PA's grievance and you are just thinking the KC's were hired to investigate nothing?
We know roughly what the PA's grievance was, don't be stupid and try to claim the KC did not have these WA messages or that they were not relevant in anyway to the scope of the investigation given to the KC by Red Bull.
How many investigations have you conducted? I've done a fair few now. So do I think it is possible the remit was set very clearly ? Yes. Do I think it is possible the remit was designed to ensure certain aspects of evidence would not be considered? Oh yes, I've been involved in this myself. We know roughly what the PA's grievance was, don't be stupid and try to claim the KC did not have these WA messages or that they were not relevant in anyway to the scope of the investigation given to the KC by Red Bull.
Hence the basis of my question to you.
But for me it is not possible that those messages were included in any evidence and Horny was still exonerated IF the remit was fair and reasonable. It is also to me not possible to suggest that the PA would still be in a job if those messages were fake, because the second they were made public she would be on a Gross Misconduct charge and out the door.
ETA but in any event we may never find out the answers. But if it gets to ET then things will change. We may see. I hope we do, whether I am right or wrong.
Edited by Jasandjules on Sunday 25th August 10:14
Jasandjules said:
But for me it is not possible that those messages were included in any evidence and Horny was still exonerated IF the remit was fair and reasonable. It is also to me not possible to suggest that the PA would still be in a job if those messages were fake, because the second they were made public she would be on a Gross Misconduct charge and out the door.
Oh, so now you, as a lawyer, are claiming that the PA is the only person that could have released those messages and that she would have been the only one to fake them?I imagine she would have provided them to RB in her original grievance. It is then, that someone with access to RB internal documents, would have taken them and tried to weaponize them publicly only to show CH in a bad way.
You do also know that the PA has been put on leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation into, what media suggests, was some level of dishonesty in her answers to the 1st KC's questioning.
Your argument and 'smoking gun' line of questioning to CH under cross examination essentially hinges on these WA messages:
1. being 100% real
2. being in full context
3. have in no way been considered by either of the 2 KC investigations
So, if these WA messages were in fact a part of both KC investigations, which I would think is very very likely, and most people would think so, then your entire excitement of this line of questioning fails miserably.
Because we just have very little publicly available to base our view on, I really want this to go to an ET. Might be very bad for CH, but at least we will have truth and proper evidence available.
Jasandjules said:
It is also to me not possible to suggest that the PA would still be in a job if those messages were fake, because the second they were made public she would be on a Gross Misconduct charge and out the door.
If they're fake/modified we don't know whether she did it. We don't know it was her who released them. It's a logical fallacy to say if the messages aren't real she must lose her job. Forester1965 said:
Jasandjules said:
It is also to me not possible to suggest that the PA would still be in a job if those messages were fake, because the second they were made public she would be on a Gross Misconduct charge and out the door.
If they're fake/modified we don't know whether she did it. We don't know it was her who released them. It's a logical fallacy to say if the messages aren't real she must lose her job. Jasandjules said:
But given what an employer must show, it would be a fairly straightforward job to hold her accountable for their disclosure. Not least given IF they were fake then Horny would be able to prove that.
You are assuming that the messages sent out publicly are identical to the messages she provided as evidence to Red Bull / the KC.What she provided RB may or may not be the same as what was sent publicly and they may be real or maybe altered in some way BUT it is unknown who is responsible for the leak, by that point many people within RB and also people close to her would have had access to these messages.
Jasandjules said:
But given what an employer must show, it would be a fairly straightforward job to hold her accountable for their disclosure. Not least given IF they were fake then Horny would be able to prove that.
Once the original messages left her phone (assuming there were original messages), all bets are off.From the information reported she had/has legal advisers. It wouldn't be in her interests for the messages to leak.
Victor.Lee said:
PhilAsia said:
I do find it amusing when they accuse another poster of "frothing", whilst they jump on every post and use block caps! 
I also do find it amusing when some poster asks 2 times what question he would ask CH under cross examination but then decides to decline providing that question when prompted. Because he does not have it, he knows he is wrong to be so steadfast that CH and RB simply stating outcome was in some way a huge misstep that opposing lawyers would be eager to jump at.If you disagree then how about you add to the conversation and also explain to me why simply stating KC outcome without answering previous questions on content of investigation (e.g. CH refusing to comment on the WA messages), was so bad and how would opposing lawyers use this to their advantage.
Block caps used to emphasize because he was not understanding the simple idea. Deal with it.
I thought we established a long time ago in this thread that the messages were real, that someone other than the PA released them to harm Horny in the RB power struggle and it didn't work as he has the backing of the owners.
That Horny had had another affair, having had multiple ones before...but that s
t happens on long race weekends/seasons away.
That this had every look of a RB whitewash over the claim initially it was over Horny's 'management style' and then the lack of openness. That the PA had appealed over what was claimed a whitewash and that internal appeal process had concluded and been dismissed.
That RB firefighting is indeed very efficient...
That Horny had had another affair, having had multiple ones before...but that s
t happens on long race weekends/seasons away.That this had every look of a RB whitewash over the claim initially it was over Horny's 'management style' and then the lack of openness. That the PA had appealed over what was claimed a whitewash and that internal appeal process had concluded and been dismissed.
That RB firefighting is indeed very efficient...
"Horner, Ford CEO, meet to patch up broken relationship" - https://www.grandprix.com/news/horner-ford-ceo-mee...
Wasn't aware it had ? Thought Ford were behind RB during their trauma packed few months.
Wasn't aware it had ? Thought Ford were behind RB during their trauma packed few months.
I had a complaint against a company, this pre-Covid. I put it on an email, sent it and waited for the result. About three weeks went by before I received their reply to the effect that they had carefully considered the evidence, and concluded they had complied with all internal and external laws, regulations and procedures. A solicitor friend told me to appeal, which I did, and then five weeks went by before I received an all but identical email. The brief said that if the two groups/persons enquiring into the complaint were given the same info, they'd obviously come to the same conclusion.
I was given a proforma to fill in and she sent it off. Three days later I was paid out and promised a bonus for 'inconvenience'. I still await their reply.
It wasn't much money, merely a subscription where they had renewed it without informing me and four weeks before the due date. They were, they suggested, unable to reverse the order as I'd already received the goods, despite no opening said programme two weeks before the expiry/stealing day.
I was given a proforma to fill in and she sent it off. Three days later I was paid out and promised a bonus for 'inconvenience'. I still await their reply.
It wasn't much money, merely a subscription where they had renewed it without informing me and four weeks before the due date. They were, they suggested, unable to reverse the order as I'd already received the goods, despite no opening said programme two weeks before the expiry/stealing day.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff