Christian Horner under Investigation

[PapayaFan481]

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

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

A trial by media aka lynch mobe is much more trustworthy & less error-prone...

Maybe if Redbull wasn’t try brush away sexual abuse and cohesive behaviour under the carpet like with other misdeeds they’re wouldn’t have to be such media attention. The ploy even when cheating the defence is, I’m the victim, won’t someone think of the children/wife/dog

At least they haven't blamed the caterer....

[f1jcw]

I wonder what her friends at Redbull think of the matter and the current resolution, unless you are strange, it must be hard to take.

[galus]

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

[f1jcw]

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

No, it has not, if you evidence that contradicts this, please provide it.

[galus]

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

No, it has not, if you evidence that contradicts this, please provide it.

“The independent investigation into the allegations made against Mr. Horner is complete, and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed,”

[Watto]

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

No, it has not, if you evidence that contradicts this, please provide it.

“The independent investigation into the allegations made against Mr. Horner is complete, and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed,”

I think the point hes making is RB dismissed them it may not be what the report found they aren't obliged to follow the report. When the 51% owner backs him. And we haven't really seen any details of the report.


The only though I have is and was a point bought in the Saward blog/comments was with the conflict within RBGmbH one side backing Horner the other wanting him out; if the report had findings against him why hasn't someone leaked it to build pressure on Horner. Not like its a united front and you need that one person to leak it, there are enough high up that have the motivation to leak and lots has been leaked in this. But its far far from the only reason its kept under wraps and a theory that has no real backing other than random ideas.

[stonehenge]

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

No, it has not, if you evidence that contradicts this, please provide it.

“The independent investigation into the allegations made against Mr. Horner is complete, and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed,”

I really don't want to be mean, but we've been over this a number of times. The quoted sentence does not indicate why the grievance was dismissed or who made the decision to dismiss it. The clause "and Red Bull can confirm that the grievance has been dismissed" is passive voice and does not indicate who undertook the action. The subject of the clause is being acted upon rather than acting itself. It's like saying "the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix was won." By who??? Without more info, it's simply unknowable and cannot be deduced from the information provided in the sentence alone.

Please, if someone actually has more info on what led to the dismissal of the complaint and who made the decision, post it here. But don't keep referring to Red Bull's statement.

[CHT]

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.

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

A trial by media aka lynch mobe is much more trustworthy & less error-prone...

that's the impression I got.

[dialtone]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/68501426

BBC Sport has learned the reason given by Red Bull to the employee was that she had been dishonest.

All the typical caveats here apply of course but... That's some next level nonsense from RBR. Again, setting aside the truthfulness of the original claim from 134 pages ago, HR dept at RBR is utterly powerless or unprofessional.

EDIT: Elaborating a bit, I said what I said because if this was established at the moment of the internal procedure, then it should have been administered there and then, not another 2 weeks later. Doing it now gives the impression of retaliation which is just about the worst thing you want to do.

[mendis]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/68501426

BBC Sport has learned the reason given by Red Bull to the employee was that she had been dishonest.

All the typical caveats here apply of course but... That's some next level nonsense from RBR. Again, setting aside the truthfulness of the original claim from 134 pages ago, HR dept at RBR is utterly powerless or unprofessional.

EDIT: Elaborating a bit, I said what I said because if this was established at the moment of the internal procedure, then it should have been administered there and then, not another 2 weeks later. Doing it now gives the impression of retaliation which is just about the worst thing you want to do.

If she is not dishonest and has the evidence to prove she is right, she can file a criminal case. Once the case happens in a court, we would know the real truth

I hazard a guess that there is some relationship between this woman and Jos. They both appears out from Red Bull now. Jos suddenly burst out in public after the case was dismissed against her and the so called chats were leaked.

[dialtone]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/68501426

BBC Sport has learned the reason given by Red Bull to the employee was that she had been dishonest.

All the typical caveats here apply of course but... That's some next level nonsense from RBR. Again, setting aside the truthfulness of the original claim from 134 pages ago, HR dept at RBR is utterly powerless or unprofessional.

EDIT: Elaborating a bit, I said what I said because if this was established at the moment of the internal procedure, then it should have been administered there and then, not another 2 weeks later. Doing it now gives the impression of retaliation which is just about the worst thing you want to do.

If she is not dishonest and has the evidence to prove she is right, she can file a criminal case. Once the case happens in a court, we would know the real truth.

This is a very reductive statement from a binary point of view as if every decision encountered until now is absolutely black or white. All that aside, if you are RBR why would you want to go to court? It's time and money and attention out of the window, it will be more invasive and revelatory of information that so far could have easily remained private.

There's not that much to gain for RB except certainly a display of force, and I'm not sure the employees would love that. With what face do you later go to employees saying that you have an anonymous hot line to report harassment violations after all of this?

This isn't an argument between 2 people about who's right and wrong, when a company is in the middle it's a much bigger equation.

[CHT]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/68501426



All the typical caveats here apply of course but... That's some next level nonsense from RBR. Again, setting aside the truthfulness of the original claim from 134 pages ago, HR dept at RBR is utterly powerless or unprofessional.

EDIT: Elaborating a bit, I said what I said because if this was established at the moment of the internal procedure, then it should have been administered there and then, not another 2 weeks later. Doing it now gives the impression of retaliation which is just about the worst thing you want to do.

If she is not dishonest and has the evidence to prove she is right, she can file a criminal case. Once the case happens in a court, we would know the real truth.

This is a very reductive statement from a binary point of view as if every decision encountered until now is absolutely black or white. All that aside, if you are RBR why would you want to go to court? It's time and money and attention out of the window, it will be more invasive and revelatory of information that so far could have easily remained private.

There's not that much to gain for RB except certainly a display of force, and I'm not sure the employees would love that. With what face do you later go to employees saying that you have an anonymous hot line to report harassment violations after all of this?

This isn't an argument between 2 people about who's right and wrong, when a company is in the middle it's a much bigger equation.

The leak information is damaging to CH and also to the company because the company has decided there was no wrong doing and keep CH as CEO.

[dialtone]

The leak information is damaging to CH and also to the company because the company has decided there was no wrong doing and keep CH as CEO.

So you are saying the leaked information is true? And if the employee was found guilty of this, why suspend instead of firing and maybe even suing for defamation?

[CHT]

The leak information is damaging to CH and also to the company because the company has decided there was no wrong doing and keep CH as CEO.

So you are saying the leaked information is true? And if the employee was found guilty of this, why suspend instead of firing and maybe even suing for defamation?

everything has to be put in context..whether it is true or not the highly paid KC team and those invole know best.

Anything leak of private and company information I reckon is illegal.

[Watto]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/68501426



All the typical caveats here apply of course but... That's some next level nonsense from RBR. Again, setting aside the truthfulness of the original claim from 134 pages ago, HR dept at RBR is utterly powerless or unprofessional.

EDIT: Elaborating a bit, I said what I said because if this was established at the moment of the internal procedure, then it should have been administered there and then, not another 2 weeks later. Doing it now gives the impression of retaliation which is just about the worst thing you want to do.

If she is not dishonest and has the evidence to prove she is right, she can file a criminal case. Once the case happens in a court, we would know the real truth.

This is a very reductive statement from a binary point of view as if every decision encountered until now is absolutely black or white. All that aside, if you are RBR why would you want to go to court? It's time and money and attention out of the window, it will be more invasive and revelatory of information that so far could have easily remained private.

There's not that much to gain for RB except certainly a display of force, and I'm not sure the employees would love that. With what face do you later go to employees saying that you have an anonymous hot line to report harassment violations after all of this?

This isn't an argument between 2 people about who's right and wrong, when a company is in the middle it's a much bigger equation.

If its retaliation for reporting a harassment claim its extremely poor on RBR pov, and can only see it coming back to bite .

But if the accuser has not been honest aka RB has some evidence the lied, or fabricated evidence the action isn't that bad, don't think you can leave someone doing that without potential consequences.

As has been pointed out, if she has decided to launch legal action against RB for workplace harassment suspension on full pay pending the result of the action would be a fairly normal reaction from lawyers.

I wonder if where we are at now is from a Sky article I think it said she turned up Monday morning and was meet with a legal letter from RB and had 5 days to reply to the claim.

I saw a reference somewhere that she decided not make a reply to the verdict where I would think it could be pretty normal to be suspended pending a finding? Compared to if she replied and they have to figure out what to do from here With the eyes on the case, though if its purely retaliation it may get very ugly for them