Christian Horner under Investigation

[Watto]

Horner did not deny anything. An innocent man bites back agressively. Horney was extremely timid and quiet over the matters and seemingly got more timid as the "evidence" was released.

The story is surely real even if Horner is "Legally innocent"

This!!

I think there is some truth to it. But context matters too.

The stuff that was leaked I think should have had him removed. Its very open to what exactly the KC report said i.e. we found evendence of wrong doing by CH however if challenged in court reasons for dismissal are low and CH would likely win any case.

RB could have decided to let it go rather than drag it through court. But I get the feeling too that there is something missing too.


I'm not always a fan of he acted a certain way therefore they are or are not guilty, Answers are not always that simple and there are often a lot of details behind that are not public, I've followed cases over the years and fallen into the same trap when its been trial by media - I am sure there is plenty of truth to it and CH maybe very lucky he is still there. but we've only really heard one side too

[PlatinumZealot]

Context matters as you say. We are not inside the halls of milton keynes to see the day to day interactions of these people. It could be relationship where the two flirt at each other all day.. Just the bit we see in text was probably an overzealous horner. She may not be as naive as her texts make he out to be.

[Dunlay]

Horner did not deny anything. An innocent man bites back agressively. Horney was extremely timid and quiet over the matters and seemingly got more timid as the "evidence" was released.

The story is surely real even if Horner is "Legally innocent"

This!!

I think there is some truth to it. But context matters too.

The stuff that was leaked I think should have had him removed. Its very open to what exactly the KC report said i.e. we found evendence of wrong doing by CH however if challenged in court reasons for dismissal are low and CH would likely win any case.

RB could have decided to let it go rather than drag it through court. But I get the feeling too that there is something missing too.


I'm not always a fan of he acted a certain way therefore they are or are not guilty, Answers are not always that simple and there are often a lot of details behind that are not public, I've followed cases over the years and fallen into the same trap when its been trial by media - I am sure there is plenty of truth to it and CH maybe very lucky he is still there. but we've only really heard one side too

Do we have the KC report made public? Can you please share the link? If no link, then this is a lie to boost an argument. The only media reports I have read so far, simply say the KC has dismissed the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire thread of around 200 hundred pages is an argument of imaginations without any verified and proven, actual proof of the matter. The only official truth, was Horner was accused by "someone" and subsequently two KCs have looked into the matter and dismissed the complaint. Everything else is cooked up.

[Vanja #66]

Horner did not deny anything. An innocent man bites back agressively.

Why make stuff up? That is exactly what he did when the first article was published

[Watto]

This!!

I think there is some truth to it. But context matters too.

The stuff that was leaked I think should have had him removed. Its very open to what exactly the KC report said i.e. we found evendence of wrong doing by CH however if challenged in court reasons for dismissal are low and CH would likely win any case.

RB could have decided to let it go rather than drag it through court. But I get the feeling too that there is something missing too.


I'm not always a fan of he acted a certain way therefore they are or are not guilty, Answers are not always that simple and there are often a lot of details behind that are not public, I've followed cases over the years and fallen into the same trap when its been trial by media - I am sure there is plenty of truth to it and CH maybe very lucky he is still there. but we've only really heard one side too

Do we have the KC report made public? Can you please share the link? If no link, then this is a lie to boost an argument. The only media reports I have read so far, simply say the KC has dismissed the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire thread of around 200 hundred pages is an argument of imaginations without any verified and proven, actual proof of the matter. The only official truth, was Horner was accused by "someone" and subsequently two KCs have looked into the matter and dismissed the complaint. Everything else is cooked up.

No, it wasn't published as far as I know. Just that Lawyers very rarely give black and white information they will assess risk give detailed advice, they can find wrong doing but find no legal grounds. How most lawyers and court cases work

[Watto]

Horner did not deny anything. An innocent man bites back agressively.

Why make stuff up? That is exactly what he did when the first article was published

Yeah I though early he came out strongish.

I am not a fan of the he a person acting a certain way is evidence of guilt or innocence

The ' if it was a lie he would sue' stuff. There is the cost and distraction, plus does the person you are suing have any money or are you a chance at wearing the costs. And even if they are lying it does not always mean their is a legal grounds against it - I know didn't say anything about legal action here Just the he didn't act how I though they should mean this.


I've followed cases that have been very public when the public make judgements based on this stuff that ends up being very wrong.

[Dunlay]

I think there is some truth to it. But context matters too.

The stuff that was leaked I think should have had him removed. Its very open to what exactly the KC report said i.e. we found evendence of wrong doing by CH however if challenged in court reasons for dismissal are low and CH would likely win any case.

RB could have decided to let it go rather than drag it through court. But I get the feeling too that there is something missing too.


I'm not always a fan of he acted a certain way therefore they are or are not guilty, Answers are not always that simple and there are often a lot of details behind that are not public, I've followed cases over the years and fallen into the same trap when its been trial by media - I am sure there is plenty of truth to it and CH maybe very lucky he is still there. but we've only really heard one side too

Do we have the KC report made public? Can you please share the link? If no link, then this is a lie to boost an argument. The only media reports I have read so far, simply say the KC has dismissed the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire thread of around 200 hundred pages is an argument of imaginations without any verified and proven, actual proof of the matter. The only official truth, was Horner was accused by "someone" and subsequently two KCs have looked into the matter and dismissed the complaint. Everything else is cooked up.

No, it wasn't published as far as I know. Just that Lawyers very rarely give black and white information they will assess risk give detailed advice, they can find wrong doing but find no legal grounds. How most lawyers and court cases work

So what was your basis to say "they found wrong doings by CH"? It's your guess isn't it. It's ok to have a certain opinion of your own thoughts, but putting it out as a fact, corroborated by some authority, is misleading.

[Watto]

Do we have the KC report made public? Can you please share the link? If no link, then this is a lie to boost an argument. The only media reports I have read so far, simply say the KC has dismissed the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire thread of around 200 hundred pages is an argument of imaginations without any verified and proven, actual proof of the matter. The only official truth, was Horner was accused by "someone" and subsequently two KCs have looked into the matter and dismissed the complaint. Everything else is cooked up.

No, it wasn't published as far as I know. Just that Lawyers very rarely give black and white information they will assess risk give detailed advice, they can find wrong doing but find no legal grounds. How most lawyers and court cases work

So what was your basis to say "they found wrong doings by CH"? It's your guess isn't it. It's ok to have a certain opinion of your own thoughts, but putting it out as a fact, corroborated by some authority, is misleading.

I did not mean to imply that as a fact. Just that lawyers and the law works in many shades of grey. Seen lawyer discuss cases I follow and granted not based on private information , the insite into how they break down cases I've found interesting. when things appear straight forward they pick up on all these little details. Where the answer is so very rarely case dismissed . Or when they break down a legal case findings by a court how different the legal terminology of words can be very very different to the plain English most read in everyday reading.

[PapayaFan481]

This!!

I think there is some truth to it. But context matters too.

The stuff that was leaked I think should have had him removed. Its very open to what exactly the KC report said i.e. we found evendence of wrong doing by CH however if challenged in court reasons for dismissal are low and CH would likely win any case.

RB could have decided to let it go rather than drag it through court. But I get the feeling too that there is something missing too.


I'm not always a fan of he acted a certain way therefore they are or are not guilty, Answers are not always that simple and there are often a lot of details behind that are not public, I've followed cases over the years and fallen into the same trap when its been trial by media - I am sure there is plenty of truth to it and CH maybe very lucky he is still there. but we've only really heard one side too

Do we have the KC report made public? Can you please share the link? If no link, then this is a lie to boost an argument. The only media reports I have read so far, simply say the KC has dismissed the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire thread of around 200 hundred pages is an argument of imaginations without any verified and proven, actual proof of the matter. The only official truth, was Horner was accused by "someone" and subsequently two KCs have looked into the matter and dismissed the complaint. Everything else is cooked up.

Let's be clear, the KC did not dismiss the case, they made a report to RB who then dismissed the case.

[Dunlay]

I think there is some truth to it. But context matters too.

The stuff that was leaked I think should have had him removed. Its very open to what exactly the KC report said i.e. we found evendence of wrong doing by CH however if challenged in court reasons for dismissal are low and CH would likely win any case.

RB could have decided to let it go rather than drag it through court. But I get the feeling too that there is something missing too.


I'm not always a fan of he acted a certain way therefore they are or are not guilty, Answers are not always that simple and there are often a lot of details behind that are not public, I've followed cases over the years and fallen into the same trap when its been trial by media - I am sure there is plenty of truth to it and CH maybe very lucky he is still there. but we've only really heard one side too

Do we have the KC report made public? Can you please share the link? If no link, then this is a lie to boost an argument. The only media reports I have read so far, simply say the KC has dismissed the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire thread of around 200 hundred pages is an argument of imaginations without any verified and proven, actual proof of the matter. The only official truth, was Horner was accused by "someone" and subsequently two KCs have looked into the matter and dismissed the complaint. Everything else is cooked up.

Let's be clear, the KC did not dismiss the case, they made a report to RB who then dismissed the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... ormula-one

This week, the finding, that the appeal was not upheld, was presented to the board of Red Bull’s parent company, Red Bull GmbH, which accepted the decision.
.
.

"That complaint was dealt with through the company’s grievance procedure by the appointment of an independent KC who dismissed the grievance.

“The complainant exercised the right to appeal, and the appeal was carried out by another independent KC. All stages of the appeal process have now been concluded, with the final outcome that the appeal is not upheld. The KC’s conclusions have been accepted and adopted by Red Bull. The internal process has concluded.”

[Wouter]

Horner did not deny anything. An innocent man bites back agressively.

.
Why make stuff up? That is exactly what he did when the first article was published

.
When the first article about an investigation into him appeared, he did indeed respond by saying that he was just continuing to do his job because he felt he had done nothing wrong, but when the results of the investigation came out and the complaint was rejected, those text messages and photos quickly came out and went around the world. He did not respond to that.

If something like that had happened to me, I would have been furious, whether I was guilty or not. I would have opened my mouth, because that was slander and libel and my good name was being tarnished by it. I was surprised that he did not respond then.

Would you also not have said anything if this had been done to you, throw your confidential text messages out into the world,
fake or not fake? Would you not have been furious? Would you not have responded?

[Dunlay]

Horner did not deny anything. An innocent man bites back agressively.

.
Why make stuff up? That is exactly what he did when the first article was published

.
When the first article about an investigation into him appeared, he did indeed respond by saying that he was just continuing to do his job because he felt he had done nothing wrong, but when the results of the investigation came out and the complaint was rejected, those text messages and photos quickly came out and went around the world. He did not respond to that.

If something like that had happened to me, I would have been furious, whether I was guilty or not. I would have opened my mouth, because that was slander and libel and my good name was being tarnished by it. I was surprised that he did not respond then.

Would you also not have said anything if this had been done to you, throw your confidential text messages out into the world,
fake or not fake? Would you not have been furious? Would you not have responded?

How an ordinary joe would respond to an unforeseen, sudden situation could be very different to a corporate leader of an organization that is under constant eye of the media. You need to remember, they have their own PR guys (mostly including a personal attorney too) that would be helping CH handle public affairs and in a serious situation like this, whatever he says and does, can be held against him. So they would have been advising him to handle things with more control than barking like Jos does. You will probably understand if you are in his professional position, not just in his situation.

[Wouter]

When the first article about an investigation into him appeared, he did indeed respond by saying that he was just continuing to do his job because he felt he had done nothing wrong, but when the results of the investigation came out and the complaint was rejected, those text messages and photos quickly came out and went around the world. He did not respond to that.

If something like that had happened to me, I would have been furious, whether I was guilty or not. I would have opened my mouth, because that was slander and libel and my good name was being tarnished by it. I was surprised that he did not respond then.

Would you also not have said anything if this had been done to you, throw your confidential text messages out into the world,
fake or not fake? Would you not have been furious? Would you not have responded?

.
How an ordinary joe would respond to an unforeseen, sudden situation could be very different to a corporate leader of an organization that was under constant eye of the media. You need to remember, they have their own PR guys (mostly including a personal attorney too) that would be helping CH handle public affairs and in a serious situation like this, whatever he says and does, can be held against him. So they would have been advising him to handle things with more control than barking like Jos does. You will probably understand if you are in his professional position, not just in his situation.

.
I was in the same position 25 years ago. Falsely accused by a corporate leader of an organization that is under constant eye of the media, appealed twice because my complaint was rejected internally, but that's like fighting a losing battle when you work for a very large company.
All kinds of made-up accusatory stories about me were going around and no, I didn't keep my mouth shut at the time.
I threw it in court and eventually won. The big boss had to eat humble pie and had to look for a job elsewhere.
I then took over his job.
If I had been guilty, I would not have said anything and would have waited in silence for the trial, especially when all kinds of accusatory stories about me were going around.

[Dunlay]

When the first article about an investigation into him appeared, he did indeed respond by saying that he was just continuing to do his job because he felt he had done nothing wrong, but when the results of the investigation came out and the complaint was rejected, those text messages and photos quickly came out and went around the world. He did not respond to that.

If something like that had happened to me, I would have been furious, whether I was guilty or not. I would have opened my mouth, because that was slander and libel and my good name was being tarnished by it. I was surprised that he did not respond then.

Would you also not have said anything if this had been done to you, throw your confidential text messages out into the world,
fake or not fake? Would you not have been furious? Would you not have responded?

.
How an ordinary joe would respond to an unforeseen, sudden situation could be very different to a corporate leader of an organization that was under constant eye of the media. You need to remember, they have their own PR guys (mostly including a personal attorney too) that would be helping CH handle public affairs and in a serious situation like this, whatever he says and does, can be held against him. So they would have been advising him to handle things with more control than barking like Jos does. You will probably understand if you are in his professional position, not just in his situation.

.
I was in the same position 25 years ago. Falsely accused by a corporate leader of an organization that is under constant eye of the media, appealed twice because my complaint was rejected internally, but that's like fighting a losing battle when you work for a very large company.
All kinds of made-up accusatory stories about me were going around and no, I didn't keep my mouth shut at the time.
I threw it in court and eventually won. The big boss had to eat humble pie and had to look for a job elsewhere.
I then took over his job.
If I had been guilty, I would not have said anything and would have waited in silence for the trial, especially when all kinds of accusatory stories about me were going around.

Seems you didn't have a PR team and group of consultants that manage your public image and protect from the media trial by helping you guard in what you say and how you behave. I guess that's the difference.

[bluechris]

You keep beating a dead horse here guys. To me and many others, Horner when this images went public, hasn't spoken a single word. Noone innocent would do that no matter if he is poor or rich or has 200 people PR team.
It's simple as that. Anyway life goes on.