time to move the thread from “General” to “Off Topic”.Perhaps, but there's enough in the rest of the leaked materials to relieve Horner of his duties - again, assuming the contents are, in fact, genuine.djos wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:32Someone pointed out some of the d!ick pics etc are from a euro footballer scandal.mkay wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:04I have seen the entire content of the Google Drive folder. If the content is indeed fake, then it's a darn well-made fake. On a technical level, there's nothing there that suggests this is fake. In my mind, the only way I can see this being fake is the way Horner communicates in those texts... juvenile at best.
If the content isn't fake, I can't see how he survives this scandal.
You are braver than I, I'm not going anywhere near that thing!
I think the point really is is there are some that are proven/known to be fake/from another scandal it creates doubt on the rest of the contents of the leak - prove they are fake no but think it raises very serious questionsmkay wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:35Perhaps, but there's enough in the rest of the leaked materials to relieve Horner of his duties - again, assuming the contents are, in fact, genuine.djos wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:32Someone pointed out some of the d!ick pics etc are from a euro footballer scandal.mkay wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:04
I have seen the entire content of the Google Drive folder. If the content is indeed fake, then it's a darn well-made fake. On a technical level, there's nothing there that suggests this is fake. In my mind, the only way I can see this being fake is the way Horner communicates in those texts... juvenile at best.
If the content isn't fake, I can't see how he survives this scandal.
I am not sure why this is the conclusion here. Are were aware if this evidence was not already present at the investigation conducted at the external barrister? My assumption is there was this, and plenty more available. I am happy to be corrected. In any case if this evidence was not available back then, it makes me very curious why this was not present.mkay wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:35Perhaps, but there's enough in the rest of the leaked materials to relieve Horner of his duties - again, assuming the contents are, in fact, genuine.djos wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:32Someone pointed out some of the d!ick pics etc are from a euro footballer scandal.mkay wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:04
I have seen the entire content of the Google Drive folder. If the content is indeed fake, then it's a darn well-made fake. On a technical level, there's nothing there that suggests this is fake. In my mind, the only way I can see this being fake is the way Horner communicates in those texts... juvenile at best.
If the content isn't fake, I can't see how he survives this scandal.
I agree. I noticed it too but cant be certain. I think journalists will properly verify the contents and we will see the outcome in coming days. So we should not try to get too ahead of ourselves.mkay wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:04I have seen the entire content of the Google Drive folder. If the content is indeed fake, then it's a darn well-made fake. On a technical level, there's nothing there that suggests this is fake. In my mind, the only way I can see this being fake is the way Horner communicates in those texts... juvenile at best.
If the content isn't fake, I can't see how he survives this scandal.
Yeah this ^^^. Someone clearly doctored in the explicit pics. That does not mean the rest are also fake!littlebigcat wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:41The pictures being highlighted from a different scandal are not in the folder. That was clearly someone taking the originally leaked pictures and adding extras for some perverted clout.
Specifically files 17 and 21 in the tweet with the fake pics are screenshots of textmessages on the Google drive.
If it were as clear as you suggest that these are fake we would know by now. Also, from a legal perspective, if you believed these to be fake but wanted to be cautious declaring them as such, you would not comment on the situation until you've investigated further.MIKEY_! wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:06There are plenty of legal reasons for horner not to say they're fake. Defamation law is complex and fickle and it's not always worth the risk. Especially if you've been cleared of wrongdoing.stonehenge wrote: ↑29 Feb 2024, 20:35I agree. This is not the statement you would put out if these were just fake. Responding to them, especially without stating that they are not accurate, just gives them credibility. Would be very strange if they aren’t real.bonjon1979 wrote: ↑29 Feb 2024, 20:29
I have always denied the allegations, is very different from those aren’t real. If they were fake he’d say so. The allegations were of inappropriate and controlling behaviour. Perhaps the ‘investigator’ concluded it’s not inappropriate to send dick pics to your assistant if she welcomes said pics. I suggest most corporations would take issue with company phones being used jn such a way, but red bull are the cool distributors tho right so….
Reverse image searching has already shown at least some of the explicit pictures to be of other people from previous scandals. Others appear to be AI generated images according to the naked eye on online analysis tools (not that either of those are perfect). At most this is a real story with major faked embellishments. Or it's entirely faked using some real (innocent) photos to add authenticity.
It certainly casts serious doubt on the entire "leak" tho.stonehenge wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:51Yeah this ^^^. Someone clearly doctored in the explicit pics. That does not mean the rest are also fake!littlebigcat wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 01:41The pictures being highlighted from a different scandal are not in the folder. That was clearly someone taking the originally leaked pictures and adding extras for some perverted clout.
Specifically files 17 and 21 in the tweet with the fake pics are screenshots of textmessages on the Google drive.
Detelegraaf is a gutter rag, I dont know why anyone takes it seriously!Hammerfist wrote: ↑01 Mar 2024, 02:07The Controlling behavior complaint was amended a long time ago. Detelegraaf has reiterated today that the complaint was about sexual misconduct and the leak, if real, proves that it was sexual misconduct. I dont understand how redbull cant just publish an official statement saying the leaked pictures are fake. Wait. Maybe its because theyre not. Just maybe…
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ormula-oneHorner was in the Bahrain paddock on Thursday morning after he was cleared of inappropriate controlling behaviour towards a female colleague.
