Christian Horner under Investigation

[Ben1980]

Has anyone said these are fake? Anything to indicate that these are fake?

Because just choosing to treat them as fake, is no better than choosing to accept them as real.

[maxxer]

Has anyone said these are fake? Anything to indicate that these are fake?

Because just choosing to treat them as fake, is no better than choosing to accept them as real.

This is the current mainstream media they will publish an article with some words like "allegedly".
While not confirming the source and then let the public run with it and take comments off the public for the next article.

[Watto]

Has anyone said these are fake? Anything to indicate that these are fake?

Because just choosing to treat them as fake, is no better than choosing to accept them as real.

Nope in either front, I’ve long felt they area real but have just been very suspicious of so many elements of the story, I don’t think I ever doubted there is/was a genuine complaint just things I’m suspicious of; but if they are legit see no way Horner survives. Too many self interested parties in all this.

[Watto]

Has anyone said these are fake? Anything to indicate that these are fake?

Because just choosing to treat them as fake, is no better than choosing to accept them as real.

This is the current mainstream media they will publish an article with some words like "allegedly".
While not confirming the source and then let the public run with it and take comments off the public for the next article.

One paper today went as far as to basically accuse of sexting then say they don’t know if they are real or fake.

[mcdenife]

We live in a world of dangerous misinformation, fakery and AI. Unless something is not established as 100% genuine, it would be ideal to treat it as fake. The only way any piece of that information that's available on that google drive is real, is if there is a forensic analysis of it. Our hate to an individual shouldn't bias us so much that we start believing unverified information as genuine, just because "it looks genuine".

WTF!??!!?! Sheer staggering hypocrisy!!

[mendis]

We live in a world of dangerous misinformation, fakery and AI. Unless something is not established as 100% genuine, it would be ideal to treat it as fake. The only way any piece of that information that's available on that google drive is real, is if there is a forensic analysis of it. Our hate to an individual shouldn't bias us so much that we start believing unverified information as genuine, just because "it looks genuine".

WTF!??!!?! Sheer staggering hypocrisy!!

Did I miss something?

[PapayaFan481]

Since Redbull KC has already dismiss this complain against Horner, I am guessing attempt to file an appeal or go to court will likely be thrown out or result is costly legal fee for lawyers trying to make a name for themselves by taking on this case of huge public interest

KC are KC for reasons, they know the rule of laws better than anyone and that's why they command such high fee
.
Perhaps through investigation they have discover that the women is linked to the leak, something which is against the company policies..

Guess this case will move from women against CH to woman against RB

KC is just a job, like any other professional, they are fallible.

Also as others have pointed out, we do not know WHAT the KC's report said. It may or may not have included a recommendation, depending on what the KC was asked to provide in their conclusion.

The decision to dismiss the complaint was made by Red Bull, not the KC.

The decision that the grievance has been dismissed has been made by the KC.

BTW a KC is not "just a job"

To be awarded King’s Counsel (KC) status is a recognition of excellence and one of the highest honours a solicitor can attain.

The award is given to lawyers who have demonstrated exceptional ability in advocacy cases of substance, complexity, or significant difficulty or sensitivity in the higher courts of England and Wales, tribunals, arbitrations or other forums.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ad ... oming-a-kc

Sorry, but a KC is a professional, they are human, therefore they are able to make mistakes. No-one, not a single person on this planet if infallible. And yes, a KC is just a job, just like a Judge is just a job, a consultant neurosurgeon is just a job and chief Technical Officer for Red Bull Racing is just a job.

They train long and hard and achieve a lot, but none of that makes them incapable of making mistakes.

Even more important, the KC can only work with the information they are given, clients and witnesses can withhold information and they can lie (gasp).

So yes, a KC is just a job and they are fallible. Now I'm not saying they made a mistake here, but it is also impossible to say they didn't without having all the evidence and the full report - which we have not got and have no reason to expect ever to have. It is not our place to have.

Oh yeah, and how do I know this? One of my father's close friends is a KC. Really nice guy, humble as anyone I've ever met and would be the FIRST person to admit that he is capable of making a mistake.

[myurr]

We live in a world of dangerous misinformation, fakery and AI. Unless something is not established as 100% genuine, it would be ideal to treat it as fake. The only way any piece of that information that's available on that google drive is real, is if there is a forensic analysis of it. Our hate to an individual shouldn't bias us so much that we start believing unverified information as genuine, just because "it looks genuine".

WTF!??!!?! Sheer staggering hypocrisy!!

Unfortunately par for the course. If it's damaging to Horner it's fake, if it's something the team have said it's 100% genuine and honest.

There isn't a single objective reason that proves the leaked messages are fake. That they could be faked doesn't mean they have been. Looking objectively at the content of the messages, the tie ins with verifiable dates, the general mundane nature of the majority of the messages, most reasonable people would conclude they're genuine. There's no cast iron guarantee but the balance of probability is definitely heavily weighted towards that conclusion.

[myurr]

Sorry, but a KC is a professional, they are human, therefore they are able to make mistakes. No-one, not a single person on this planet if infallible. And yes, a KC is just a job, just like a Judge is just a job, a consultant neurosurgeon is just a job and chief Technical Officer for Red Bull Racing is just a job.

They train long and hard and achieve a lot, but none of that makes them incapable of making mistakes.

Even more important, the KC can only work with the information they are given, clients and witnesses can withhold information and they can lie (gasp).

So yes, a KC is just a job and they are fallible. Now I'm not saying they made a mistake here, but it is also impossible to say they didn't without having all the evidence and the full report - which we have not got and have no reason to expect ever to have. It is not our place to have.

Oh yeah, and how do I know this? One of my father's close friends is a KC. Really nice guy, humble as anyone I've ever met and would be the FIRST person to admit that he is capable of making a mistake.

Well said, I completely agree. The other thing that must be remembered is that the KC is hired by the company for the company to protect the company's interests. They are given the brief by the company and will work to that brief. Without knowing the terms of their investigation, the evidence they considered, the summary they wrote, we cannot judge the job that they did. And the ultimate decision would not be taken by the KC, it would be by board vote. The board may vote against the evidence, that is their prerogative. They need to be informed by the KC's report but then they will vote in the best interests of the company and shareholders.

[Quantum]

Sorry, but a KC is a professional, they are human, therefore they are able to make mistakes. No-one, not a single person on this planet if infallible. And yes, a KC is just a job, just like a Judge is just a job, a consultant neurosurgeon is just a job and chief Technical Officer for Red Bull Racing is just a job.

They train long and hard and achieve a lot, but none of that makes them incapable of making mistakes.

Even more important, the KC can only work with the information they are given, clients and witnesses can withhold information and they can lie (gasp).

So yes, a KC is just a job and they are fallible. Now I'm not saying they made a mistake here, but it is also impossible to say they didn't without having all the evidence and the full report - which we have not got and have no reason to expect ever to have. It is not our place to have.

Oh yeah, and how do I know this? One of my father's close friends is a KC. Really nice guy, humble as anyone I've ever met and would be the FIRST person to admit that he is capable of making a mistake.

Well said, I completely agree. The other thing that must be remembered is that the KC is hired by the company for the company to protect the company's interests. They are given the brief by the company and will work to that brief. Without knowing the terms of their investigation, the evidence they considered, the summary they wrote, we cannot judge the job that they did. And the ultimate decision would not be taken by the KC, it would be by board vote. The board may vote against the evidence, that is their prerogative. They need to be informed by the KC's report but then they will vote in the best interests of the company and shareholders.

The board is largely redundant. Chalerm Yoovidhya can essentially direct the board to do whatever he wants due to the majority shareholding, including the scope and remit of the KC's investigation.
The KC can also be instructed by his contracted employer to ignore certain facets of evidence that have been presented. Until we know some of these details the speculation will continue to grow and damage the sport and Red Bull.
Honda are calling for more transparency now:

We do not have full details on the matter at this point, therefore Honda are not in a position to make any detailed comment. We look forward to full clarity as soon as possible.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... esty.html

[Tommy Cookers]

regarding what the employer must do .....
it seems to me that no poster has read the 91-page UK Home Office directive
(linked c.page 20 of this thread)

[myurr]

regarding what the employer must do .....
it seems to me that no poster has read the 91-page UK Home Office directive
(linked c.page 20 of this thread)

I think plenty are well versed in what the employer should do, not all are presuming that this particular employer has done all that they should. It wouldn't be the first example in history of an employer disregarding their responsibilities because it suited them.

[myurr]

The board is largely redundant. Chalerm Yoovidhya can essentially direct the board to do whatever he wants due to the majority shareholding, including the scope and remit of the KC's investigation.
The KC can also be instructed by his contracted employer to ignore certain facets of evidence that have been presented. Until we know some of these details the speculation will continue to grow and damage the sport and Red Bull.
Honda are calling for more transparency now:

We do not have full details on the matter at this point, therefore Honda are not in a position to make any detailed comment. We look forward to full clarity as soon as possible.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... esty.html

Depends on the structure put in place - the board could be 1 member 1 vote, or it could be weighted by shareholding. Even then it depends on Yoovidhya's general approach - he may be extremely respectful of his fellow board members, or he could be happy to strong arm them, threaten them with replacement if they don't toe the line, etc. As with Red Bull's general approach to employment law there's no guarantee that things operate in the way they should operate, and there are plenty of examples of weak boards dominated by single majority shareholders.

[Watto]

Sorry, but a KC is a professional, they are human, therefore they are able to make mistakes. No-one, not a single person on this planet if infallible. And yes, a KC is just a job, just like a Judge is just a job, a consultant neurosurgeon is just a job and chief Technical Officer for Red Bull Racing is just a job.

They train long and hard and achieve a lot, but none of that makes them incapable of making mistakes.

Even more important, the KC can only work with the information they are given, clients and witnesses can withhold information and they can lie (gasp).

So yes, a KC is just a job and they are fallible. Now I'm not saying they made a mistake here, but it is also impossible to say they didn't without having all the evidence and the full report - which we have not got and have no reason to expect ever to have. It is not our place to have.

Oh yeah, and how do I know this? One of my father's close friends is a KC. Really nice guy, humble as anyone I've ever met and would be the FIRST person to admit that he is capable of making a mistake.

Well said, I completely agree. The other thing that must be remembered is that the KC is hired by the company for the company to protect the company's interests. They are given the brief by the company and will work to that brief. Without knowing the terms of their investigation, the evidence they considered, the summary they wrote, we cannot judge the job that they did. And the ultimate decision would not be taken by the KC, it would be by board vote. The board may vote against the evidence, that is their prerogative. They need to be informed by the KC's report but then they will vote in the best interests of the company and shareholders.

The board is largely redundant. Chalerm Yoovidhya can essentially direct the board to do whatever he wants due to the majority shareholding, including the scope and remit of the KC's investigation.
The KC can also be instructed by his contracted employer to ignore certain facets of evidence that have been presented. Until we know some of these details the speculation will continue to grow and damage the sport and Red Bull.
Honda are calling for more transparency now:

We do not have full details on the matter at this point, therefore Honda are not in a position to make any detailed comment. We look forward to full clarity as soon as possible.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formu ... esty.html

The only thing I think this continues to ignore is the conflict between the Thai and Austrian side of RBGmbH and there hasn’t been a leak really on either the KCs report being fixed nor if there were some string findings against Horner. While l lean towards it being true for these reason I don’t think you can call is strong, I’ve seen and been far too invested in similar investigations in the past to know how high level leaks can be hugely misleading. Too many in high places to want Horner gone that could easily enough leak something to either question the reliability of the report.

Not that I disagree with most elements of what’s posted here; if you had a united boards I would expect everything rosey I take with a grain of salt anything from RBR, Horner well timed planned PR releases ‘oh look over there a sponsor signed’ is just PR101


Most of what I see makes me feel he’s guilty and deny deny deny and hope you’re not caught out One BClintion Monika Lewinski scandle how hard he rode that I have not had a…..yeah you know the rest

[TFSA]

You seem like you're at least somewhat versed in the law.

Let's say "law", rather than "the law". I'm not british nor austrian, and the laws of countries obviously differ, but a lot of the basic principles carry over between countries in the western world.

Do you think there's any milage in the theory that Red Bull / Horner are deliberately breaching employment law with his accuser on a trumped up charge so that she'll lawyer up and head down the legal route? With a court case in play the leaker and press would be much more careful about what they put into the public domain, and it allows Horner / Red Bull to make her a settlement offering with an NDA, which her lawyers would advise her to take if the monetary value is high enough. The courts tend to frown upon cases where a reasonable settlement was offered but rejected. A court case could also allow Horner to apply for a super injunction to keep it out the British press at least.

The penalties of heading down that route are purely financial, so even if it costs them a couple of million pounds it's not going to break the bank, and if it keeps the story out of the press for a while it allows Horner to complete the RBT deal and solidify his power base.

"Not impossible" is the best i can do. I wouldn't put it above a big corp, but it's a very risky strategy.

This is a case where the truth is the most powerful weapon. Basically there's 3 options:

1. Horner did a "big naugthy"
2. Horner is - more or less, or potentially fully - innocent, and at worst only did very mild flirting/controlling behavior (which would also mean the leaks are either fully or mostly fake)
3. Answer lies somewhere between 1 and 2, meaning he exerted at least somewhat inappropriate behavior. Leaks may or may not be fake/true.

I only think Red Bull/Horner would be truly interested in a lawsuit in the case of point 2.
If Point 3 is the truth, then i see a lawsuit as a detriment to Red Bull, because even if it won't expose major sexual harrassment, it would still make Horner look bad to the entire world, as well as his family and friends. Remember, this is not just about money or Horners job. He has a vested interest in saving face, including being potentially proven innocent, and so does Red Bull, especially after they decided to clear him. And even if the answer is point 3, that's still not gonna look good for his reputation. And Red Bull would look like they attempted a cover-up.

Second best solution for Horner and Red Bull short of being proven innocent, is, as you mention, a settlement. It would basically mean that we, as the public, will likely never know the full extend of it, and therefore, any animosity from people towards Red Bull and Horner would be purely subjective speculation, similar to what Michael Jackson experienced. Most people still have a positive view of Michael Jackson.

But as far as Red Bull doing trumped up charges? I find it at highly risky move.