Christian Horner under Investigation

[CHT]

finally we get to read what CH has to say about the "grievance".

wonder what the women will do next

https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... -principal

[bagajohny]

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.

Watch the Team Representatives Press Conference. Horner say that "He (as in KC) dismissed it".

[chrstphrln]

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.

Watch the Team Representatives Press Conference. Horner say that "He (as in KC) dismissed it".

Oh, yes. And CH is an absolutely trustworthy source, ask his wife.

[FW17]

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

Watch the Team Representatives Press Conference. Horner say that "He (as in KC) dismissed it".

Oh, yes. And CH is an absolutely trustworthy source, ask his wife.

Why would be make a statement that can easily be challenged if untrue

[mendis]

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

Watch the Team Representatives Press Conference. Horner say that "He (as in KC) dismissed it".

Oh, yes. And CH is an absolutely trustworthy source, ask his wife.

At this point, people are clutching to straws. It doesn't matter of it was Red Bull GmbH or KC that dismissed it. The fact is, the complaint didn't warrant any action and hence it was dismissed. The woman is now suspended and nobody knows exactly.

[chrstphrln]

Watch the Team Representatives Press Conference. Horner say that "He (as in KC) dismissed it".

Oh, yes. And CH is an absolutely trustworthy source, ask his wife.

Why would be make a statement that can easily be challenged if untrue

From whom? From the KC itself? From RB? They will not. And no one else can. There is no transparency in the decisions. There is neither a confirmation nor a denial of the authenticity of the screenshots.
Whether Horner is lying or not, whether there was misconduct or not, none of that is verifiable.

[chrstphrln]

Watch the Team Representatives Press Conference. Horner say that "He (as in KC) dismissed it".

Oh, yes. And CH is an absolutely trustworthy source, ask his wife.

At this point, people are clutching to straws. It doesn't matter of it was Red Bull GmbH or KC that dismissed it. The fact is, the complaint didn't warrant any action and hence it was dismissed. The woman is now suspended and nobody knows exactly.

Oh, there is a big difference! I can't believe that someone doesn't recognize that.

[FW17]

Oh, yes. And CH is an absolutely trustworthy source, ask his wife.

Why would be make a statement that can easily be challenged if untrue

From whom? From the KC itself? From RB? They will not. And no one else can. There is no transparency in the decisions. There is neither a confirmation nor a denial of the authenticity of the screenshots.
Whether Horner is lying or not, whether there was misconduct or not, none of that is verifiable.

lame

[chrstphrln]

Why would be make a statement that can easily be challenged if untrue

From whom? From the KC itself? From RB? They will not. And no one else can. There is no transparency in the decisions. There is neither a confirmation nor a denial of the authenticity of the screenshots.
Whether Horner is lying or not, whether there was misconduct or not, none of that is verifiable.

lame

Very strong argumentation...

[mendis]

Oh, yes. And CH is an absolutely trustworthy source, ask his wife.

At this point, people are clutching to straws. It doesn't matter of it was Red Bull GmbH or KC that dismissed it. The fact is, the complaint didn't warrant any action and hence it was dismissed. The woman is now suspended and nobody knows exactly.

Oh, there is a big difference! I can't believe that someone doesn't recognize that.

[Ben1980]

I see people say about going to court. Under what basis?

If she is sacked, she can go for wrongful dismissal via a tribunal I guess. But, she hasn't been sacked (yet).

I've not seen anything illegal that would warrant police action, and if it did, in our crumbling justice system God knows what would happen anyway.

And anyway if she did get to court, up against the army of legal reps RB would have, her chances would be minimal.

[Ben1980]

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?

Has anyone said the leaked messages are fake? No denials that I'm aware of. Leads everyone to accept they are genuine. And if her being suspended is based on the leaked messages, as a breach of confidentiality, it confirms they are genuine.

Horner is a dirty dog. Just a dirty dog who didn't quite step over the line.

[maxxer]

I see people say about going to court. Under what basis?

If she is sacked, she can go for wrongful dismissal via a tribunal I guess. But, she hasn't been sacked (yet).

I've not seen anything illegal that would warrant police action, and if it did, in our crumbling justice system God knows what would happen anyway.

And anyway if she did get to court, up against the army of legal reps RB would have, her chances would be minimal.

What no one knows is ofcourse the personal file HR has on this person.
Nowadays even when you get drunk at a company party it is already noted and if you decide not to go to a company party it is noted also.

[Watto]

I see people say about going to court. Under what basis?

If she is sacked, she can go for wrongful dismissal via a tribunal I guess. But, she hasn't been sacked (yet).

I've not seen anything illegal that would warrant police action, and if it did, in our crumbling justice system God knows what would happen anyway.

And anyway if she did get to court, up against the army of legal reps RB would have, her chances would be minimal.

if the messages are accurate it’s a fairly strong workplace harassment laws. Particularly a CEO to a subordinate someone that has the power to sack you if you say no etc


It wouldn’t be a criminal case in all likelihood rather a civil case.

There have been some reports she’s has a high priced lawyer helping her too.

[maxxer]

I see people say about going to court. Under what basis?

If she is sacked, she can go for wrongful dismissal via a tribunal I guess. But, she hasn't been sacked (yet).

I've not seen anything illegal that would warrant police action, and if it did, in our crumbling justice system God knows what would happen anyway.

And anyway if she did get to court, up against the army of legal reps RB would have, her chances would be minimal.

if the messages are accurate it’s a fairly strong workplace harassment laws. Particularly a CEO to a subordinate someone that has the power to sack you if you say no etc


It wouldn’t be a criminal case in all likelihood rather a civil case.

There have been some reports she’s has a high priced lawyer helping her too.

Which law office does Toto have shares in ?