Sorry if it was not clear enough, but that’s my point too.bonjon1979 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 12:43She may well have texted him back, not because she was willing to but because of the power dynamics of a boss/employee relationship. That’s why you can’t behave in anything like the manner that’s been suggested with a subordinate, via company communication devices, or in company time. Even if it’s all kept out of the work place then it is a morally grey area because an employee more often than not feels compelled to keep the boss happy…
Not sure, they have had access to the designated FIA team to guide them through. They are building hypermodern racing cars but lacked in that area? Pretty sure he played the game of denying until they had to come clean.Watto wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 12:32Think that’s true but from what I have read too the cap rules are very complex with a lot of grey areas - he may well have though they were clear but the fia disagreed - then again I guess the same could be at play here in some formPapayaFan481 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 12:16Correct me if I'm wrong, but he also denied that Red Bull broke the budget cap in 2021 until it was shown that they didn't, didn't he?Ground Effect wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 12:14The head scratching part for me is Horner flatly denying it. Why would he if there's such overwhelming proof as the media are stating? This is what casts doubt in my mind, there's a real possibility that what's being told by the media are grossly misrepresented or flat out false and even made up. Horner described the allegations as "nuts" when they first came out, if I'm remembering correctly. On the under hand, if the allegations of the sexting are correct, then maybe Horner is of the impression that whatever transpired was consensual between two adults? But the lady being a subordinate still paints a scenario of it an inappropriate situation, which he'll largely carry the blame for.
The following is conjecture and in no way a judgement on Horner’s innocence or guilt.Ground Effect wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 12:14The head scratching part for me is Horner flatly denying it. Why would he if there's such overwhelming proof as the media are stating? This is what casts doubt in my mind, there's a real possibility that what's being told by the media are grossly misrepresented or flat out false and even made up. Horner described the allegations as "nuts" when they first came out, if I'm remembering correctly.
No doubt anyone in his position would say the same until forced so point takenrijtuig wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 14:08Not sure, they have had access to the designated FIA team to guide them through. They are building hypermodern racing cars but lacked in that area? Pretty sure he played the game of denying until they had to come clean.Watto wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 12:32Think that’s true but from what I have read too the cap rules are very complex with a lot of grey areas - he may well have though they were clear but the fia disagreed - then again I guess the same could be at play here in some formPapayaFan481 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 12:16
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he also denied that Red Bull broke the budget cap in 2021 until it was shown that they didn't, didn't he?
Yes he can’t do nothing if they are unwanted messages you report to HR. As she probably did.
Your logic here is flawed.Redragon wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 16:20Yes he can’t do nothing if they are unwanted messages you report to HR. As she probably did.
You give a chance explaining you don’t want those messages if he continues ai block him and report, i gave him the chance not to do it again. Now if she engaged for months, why she did it?! Because wanted until she didn’t, because is gathering proof or it is fishing. You don’t engage for months with someone for no reasons
So you let your boss to harass you for months?!littlebigcat wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 16:31Your logic here is flawed.Redragon wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 16:20Yes he can’t do nothing if they are unwanted messages you report to HR. As she probably did.
You give a chance explaining you don’t want those messages if he continues ai block him and report, i gave him the chance not to do it again. Now if she engaged for months, why she did it?! Because wanted until she didn’t, because is gathering proof or it is fishing. You don’t engage for months with someone for no reasons
No it doesn’t. My boss send me a relationship intention, sexual or nude or other message that i am not ok with. I let him/her know once as every other person, Politely, that that’s a boundary not to cross. He/she does again sorry but it is blocked and reported to HR. At least in my case. If you let him/her doing for months means the boundaries lines were not clear from the beginning.littlebigcat wrote: ↑19 Feb 2024, 17:06What I would do is irrelevant. Your exposition ignores well understood issues that arise through power and gender imbalances in workplaces.