Christian Horner under Investigation

[Wouter]

If I send you a message you ignore there is app traffic "between" us. It doesn't mean you participated...

.
If he was the one sending her messages all the time, for months and she wouldn't have sent a single message back,
then there is no traffic between them. Then it comes from one side, from Horner and that means no traffic between them.
Traffic comes from both sides. So I don't agree with you on that.

[Wouter]

It says traffic but it says the sexual texts came from Horner, not that she was a participant in them. There’s a very clear distinction.

.
Where did I wrote that she send also sexual messages?! He texted her and she answered those messages, at least in the beginning.
I'll leave it like this. I only said I have a few questions and I wasn't victim blaming because I don't know what happend. Nobody does!!

.
You can acknowledge what you wrote was very ambiguous and asking what happened between the first message and the report is not a normal question, it leaves the idea that you think she might have participated and only later decided to stop.

And by the way, if even that happened and at some point she stopped and he kept sharing, that’s also not ok.
Therefore the question is just inappropriate, that’s why you are getting fire.

.
That's how you interpreted my question and you interpreted it wrong!

Unbelievable... I just wonder what Horner has been up to after she stopped sending messages, which were probably very innocent.
He probably continued to harass her to such an extent that she filed a complaint with the top boss. Since Horner isn't exactly stupid,
I just wonder how he could have acted so stupidly, because it puts his job and marriage in jeopardy. That's all.

I'm not even allowed to ask normal questions here anymore because then I'll immediately be burned down and accused of all kinds of things. I'll leave it at that, because I was hoping for mature answers, but not such responses. And for the record: Yes, I believe Horner did something that is far below standard and he will have to bear the consequences if everything that has been written is true.

[dialtone]

.
Where did I wrote that she send also sexual messages?! He texted her and she answered those messages, at least in the beginning.
I'll leave it like this. I only said I have a few questions and I wasn't victim blaming because I don't know what happend. Nobody does!!

.
You can acknowledge what you wrote was very ambiguous and asking what happened between the first message and the report is not a normal question, it leaves the idea that you think she might have participated and only later decided to stop.

And by the way, if even that happened and at some point she stopped and he kept sharing, that’s also not ok.
Therefore the question is just inappropriate, that’s why you are getting fire.

.
That's how you interpreted my question and you interpreted it wrong!

Unbelievable... I just wonder what Horner has been up to after she stopped sending messages, which were probably very innocent.
He probably continued to harass her to such an extent that she filed a complaint with the top boss. Since Horner isn't exactly stupid, I wonder how he could have acted so stupidly, because it puts his job and marriage in jeopardy. That's all.

I'm not even allowed to ask normal questions here anymore because then I'll immediately be burned down and accused of all kinds of things. I'll leave it at that, because I was hoping for mature answers, but not such responses. And for the record: Yes, I believe Horner did something that is far below standard and he will have to bear the consequences if everything that has been written is true.

I’m not judging you, but if the people you talk to interpreted what you said in that way, maybe it was a bit ambiguous no?

[Wouter]

.
You can acknowledge what you wrote was very ambiguous and asking what happened between the first message and the report is not a normal question, it leaves the idea that you think she might have participated and only later decided to stop.

And by the way, if even that happened and at some point she stopped and he kept sharing, that’s also not ok.
Therefore the question is just inappropriate, that’s why you are getting fire.

.
That's how you interpreted my question and you interpreted it wrong!

Unbelievable... I just wonder what Horner has been up to after she stopped sending messages, which were probably very innocent.
He probably continued to harass her to such an extent that she filed a complaint with the top boss. Since Horner isn't exactly stupid, I wonder how he could have acted so stupidly, because it puts his job and marriage in jeopardy. That's all.

I'm not even allowed to ask normal questions here anymore because then I'll immediately be burned down and accused of all kinds of things. I'll leave it at that, because I was hoping for mature answers, but not such responses. And for the record: Yes, I believe Horner did something that is far below standard and he will have to bear the consequences if everything that has been written is true.

.
I’m not judging you, but if the people you talk to interpreted what you said in that way, maybe it was a bit ambiguous no?

.
Yes, sure and it is all my fault. Thats why I was burned down and accused of all kinds of things [not by you].

When I had opened my post with saying Horner is an awefull man and guilty as hell and has to be fired immediately and
then asked the same questions I still have nobody had reacted the way they did and it suddenly wasn't a bit ambiguous.

[koolway]

Is it really that hard to imagine what may have happened?

An ex had a similar “colleagues”… she received mail/texts/messenger/whatsapp/linkedin/… related to work which she responded, then switched to casual conversation over time…and sometimes he slowly drifted to “btw your skirt *chef kiss*… wonder what I could find underneath”.. leave it on read… that would drive him nuts so he insisted more and more…
Then few days later after silence, work related texts with urgency to which she felt obliged to respond… sometimes nothing going further but occasionally, it drifted again. It took her few iterations over several months to have the courage to go to hr…
It’s not that hard to imagine such a dynamic and for the one who receives it, it’s more complicated in the beginning to assess “is it innuendo?”… until it’s too late and it’s not hidden anymore…

Sorry to state the obvious, but it unfortunately happens quite a lot in the workplace…
Not saying that’s what happened here, but for the cases I directly witnessed, it’s always the same scheme:
There’s always 2-3 guys in a big company who you always see having lun ch with the new joiner “pretty girl”. Even though they have no project in common and never worked together (and probably never will).
But funny enough, when it’s a boy their “mentor” personality is not that applicable…. Those ones are easy to identify, ignore and raise concerns…

But when it’s your boss, it’s hard to put a hard stop when you notice it switching from “nice guy” to “a bit creepy”.

So yeah there can be months of exchange between two persons, you can feel obligated to respond *some* texts even after you knew it was going sidetrack… doesn’t mean you were a willing participant in all this…

[astralx]

.
I'm not implying anything at all! I'm saying: "So the lady initially [i.e. in the beginning] participated in that herself."

.
I haven't read anywhere what you are saying. Receiving a message is not "participating" ...

.
This is what The Telegraaf stated:
.

From the app traffic between the female employee of Red Bull and Horner, viewed by The Telegraph,
the picture emerges that Horner (50) sent sexually oriented messages to the employee regularly
and over a considerable period of time.

.
So she participated and not only receiving messages. And as I said before: initially [in the beginning].

She is Horner's assistant , so there is always very busy traffic, and f.e. one's in a time( f.e. month) , in between lines , he could have texted something not related to work....and she only sending messages regarding work , without reacting on Horner's You are so beautiful ........ sorry for my bad English

[Redragon]

.
I haven't read anywhere what you are saying. Receiving a message is not "participating" ...

.
This is what The Telegraaf stated:
.

From the app traffic between the female employee of Red Bull and Horner, viewed by The Telegraph,
the picture emerges that Horner (50) sent sexually oriented messages to the employee regularly
and over a considerable period of time.

.
So she participated and not only receiving messages. And as I said before: initially [in the beginning].

If I send you a message you ignore there is app traffic "between" us. It doesn't mean you participated...

If I receive a message unwanted, I give a note it is not ok to send me that message. If that person does it again I block. To make clear I don't want to receive that kind of messages. If she didn't block she was participating or gathering proof.

[xwz]

If I receive a message unwanted, I give a note it is not ok to send me that message. If that person does it again I block. To make clear I don't want to receive that kind of messages. If she didn't block she was participating or gathering proof.

That may be applicable if the unwanted message comes from an outsider, but may not be applicable if it comes from a superior with regular work related app traffic between the two - in such a case, blocking is not a simple option. Therefore, "If she didn't block she was participating or gathering proof" - (meaning gathering proof actively/on purpose) is not correctly deductable, and borders on sounding like an accusation..

[dialtone]

If I receive a message unwanted, I give a note it is not ok to send me that message. If that person does it again I block. To make clear I don't want to receive that kind of messages. If she didn't block she was participating or gathering proof.

So you block your boss at the company?

[chrisc90]

If I receive a message unwanted, I give a note it is not ok to send me that message. If that person does it again I block. To make clear I don't want to receive that kind of messages. If she didn't block she was participating or gathering proof.

So you block your boss at the company?

I think blocks a tough route to go down - certainly one with different avenues to take.

If you just ignore them and not partake in any response - then you (the receiver) keep yourself in the clear.

If you receive and reply - then 2 ‘wrongs’ don’t make a right. Any flirting banter works both ways.

If you block - then I guess it leaves any work discussion to meetings on company premises.


If it’s a personal phone - then by all means I’d say it’s acceptable to block your ‘boss’. But on a works phone then no - but you would expect such messages to be in order (as above). Anything untoward you simply wouldn’t reply via text.

[dialtone]

If I receive a message unwanted, I give a note it is not ok to send me that message. If that person does it again I block. To make clear I don't want to receive that kind of messages. If she didn't block she was participating or gathering proof.

So you block your boss at the company?

I think blocks a tough route to go down - certainly one with different avenues to take.

If you just ignore them and not partake in any response - then you (the receiver) keep yourself in the clear.

If you receive and reply - then 2 ‘wrongs’ don’t make a right. Any flirting banter works both ways.

If you block - then I guess it leaves any work discussion to meetings on company premises.


If it’s a personal phone - then by all means I’d say it’s acceptable to block your ‘boss’. But on a works phone then no - but you would expect such messages to be in order (as above). Anything untoward you simply wouldn’t reply via text.

I'm sorry but that's absolutely not how it works. I don't know what happened in this case, and I'm not familiar with the law in the UK, but speaking with USA knowledge.

Your distinctions above are yours only, USA law sees no difference between any of those. The only thing that matters is if at some point the action of the sender weren't welcome and didn't stop. I would be very surprised if this was different in the UK or any western country. And all of this is without the context of being in a work situation where the employee can always claim they had to respond to avoid repercussions to their career, which is fundamentally accepted because it's obviously hard to disambiguate the problem.

If the alleged facts are true, CH was incredibly stupid because he performed all of this nonsense in a work setting. I cannot fathom the level of stupidity involved here if the alleged facts are confirmed, there's basically no way back and it literally doesn't matter what the receiving party did.

EDIT: I will add, the technical name for this type of Sexual Harassment is Quid Pro Quo, and simply the law is meant to prevent the employees to be put in the situation where they don't know if they have to respond to avoid repercussions in the workplace. I'm sure the UK has a similar setting. https://www.ny.gov/sites/default/files/ ... Slides.pdf Case 02 is pretty much this one, and explains that the use of personal phones is irrelevant. Here's a legal firm marketing layer that deals with quid pro quo cases and explains a bit about the US law: https://www.wmlawyers.com/oakland-sexua ... ys/favors/

[dans79]

The only reason this is being delayed is because they’re desperately trying to pay the other party off. I guarantee that a number will be reached that they say yes to will be achieved and by the end of the week this will all disappear as they withdraw their allegations.

If that happens, I’m not sure the smell will dissipate quite as fast

I think quite the opposite. Everyone in f1 will want to brush it under the carpet ASAP, and if anyone’s offered 7 figures, they usually take it.

Some people have integrity and can't be bought!

[Paa]

Is it really that hard to imagine what may have happened?

An ex had a similar “colleagues”… she received mail/texts/messenger/whatsapp/linkedin/… related to work which she responded, then switched to casual conversation over time…and sometimes he slowly drifted to “btw your skirt *chef kiss*… wonder what I could find underneath”.. leave it on read… that would drive him nuts so he insisted more and more…
Then few days later after silence, work related texts with urgency to which she felt obliged to respond… sometimes nothing going further but occasionally, it drifted again. It took her few iterations over several months to have the courage to go to hr…
It’s not that hard to imagine such a dynamic and for the one who receives it, it’s more complicated in the beginning to assess “is it innuendo?”… until it’s too late and it’s not hidden anymore…

Sorry to state the obvious, but it unfortunately happens quite a lot in the workplace…
Not saying that’s what happened here, but for the cases I directly witnessed, it’s always the same scheme:
There’s always 2-3 guys in a big company who you always see having lun ch with the new joiner “pretty girl”. Even though they have no project in common and never worked together (and probably never will).
But funny enough, when it’s a boy their “mentor” personality is not that applicable…. Those ones are easy to identify, ignore and raise concerns…

But when it’s your boss, it’s hard to put a hard stop when you notice it switching from “nice guy” to “a bit creepy”.

So yeah there can be months of exchange between two persons, you can feel obligated to respond *some* texts even after you knew it was going sidetrack… doesn’t mean you were a willing participant in all this…

This is a nice story and could be spot on. But also could be very far away from the truth. I really don't get what's the point of speculating and imagining scenarios without knowing the facts?

I also have workplace experiences with girls who are kind of flirty and initiating cheeky interactions, then shutting down and backing off before things would go serious. It happens all the time.

Also I have 2 female colleagues with whom I switch lot of flirty messages. We all know this is just for fun, and nothing serious. It has been going on for years and for us it is clear that we mean no business. But it would look really bad if an outsider saw those messages as they are juicy and it would be impossible to explain that these were just for game and fun.

My point is that these issues can be really delicate with thin margins and many sides, it really doesn't make sense to draw a picture without knowing all the details, which we most probably never will.
The best is to wait for the official communication and accept the closure whatever that will be.

[dans79]

My point is that these issues can be really delicate with thin margins and many sides, it really doesn't make sense to speculate without knowing all the details, which we probably never will.
The best is to wait for the official communication and accept the closure whatever that will be.

To me it's like working your way through a Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie, or Inspector Perrot story. It's a mental exercise in trying to figure out the story line, before it's revealed to you.

[Hammerfist]

If I send you a message you ignore there is app traffic "between" us. It doesn't mean you participated...

.
If he was the one sending her messages all the time, for months and she wouldn't have sent a single message back,
then there is no traffic between them. Then it comes from one side, from Horner and that means no traffic between them.
Traffic comes from both sides. So I don't agree with you on that.

Um… one way traffic is still traffic…