Christian Horner under Investigation

[CMSMJ1]

.
NO, I don't know that!! And I can't also remember I posted her name weeks ago because I only found out who she was 10 or 12 days ago. And I also hadn't a message from a mod that I wasn't allowed to post her name and so it was deleted!
Believe what you want to believe if it makes you feel better. Have a nice day.

.
viewtopic.php?p=1186503#p1186503
I think we can draw a line under this discussion.

.
No I won't draw a line under this discussion.
I saw it just today because @SoulPancake13 told me 17:03 " Please look at your messages here on Feb. 17th."

I said I never got a message from a mod about it that it was deleted which they normally always send by PM.

If you take a good look at my post from 17 Feb 2024, 16:59 you can see that Steven a day later a name had removed.

"Last edited by Steven on 18 Feb 2024, 21:05, edited 1 time in total."

@Dans79 quoted my sentence 10 minutes later that was removed the next day by Steven:

" Wouter wrote: ↑ 17 Feb 2024, 16:59
It seems that this is about ***. The Financial Times mentioned "His assistent"."

Do you think I read every day my messages from the day before to see if maybe something is removed?!

I NEVER saw that Steven removed a name until today 17:15 because he did not send a PM that he edited my message.

And btw you are always full of mentioning the mods. I assume you didn't read this message from a mod
because an hour and a half later you are still going to attack me.
.

CMSMJ1
Moderator
11 Mar 2024, 17:21
Can we stop poking Wouter on this please? no need to bitch at one another!

And now, you need to stop the arm waving.
Let it go.

This discussion on he said/she said about old, deleted posts is negative.

Move on please from this one.

[Mosin123]

So, its ok to name and shame CH, but not the accuser? because naming the accuser would be setting a bad example, but it is ok to name and shame the accused because, thats a good example? are both not the exact same thing?

I dont want to cause a row..... But isnt that double standards? hypocritical even?

You can name CH, but not the one whos name we shall dare not speak? LOL

The media and Red Bull team put Horner's name in the public domain and said he was being investigated. If the woman comes forward in the next few days with a press statement of her own then I'm sure it would be considered okay to name her.

But the media have put her name out, a quick google brings me 100's of results from a number of different news sites including twitter ( x ) and facebook. its not as publicised about becaue she who shall not be named doesnt bring as many " clicks " as CHs name.......

If its ok to name one side, its fine to name the other, Both are equals.

[CHT]

The last time I searched Geri Halliwell's name appeared 62 + 1 times on this thread.
So why should Horner's wife be named in this thread?

[Mosin123]

The last time I searched Geri Halliwell's name appeared 62 + 1 times on this thread.
So why should Horner's wife be named in this thread?

because.. such and such news site and redbull in statement, no no, hmm, because hmmm, she is accused fo texting her too. no no. no defo not, what on earth am i thinking, becasue the women who shall not be named. hasnt been mentioned in the news, no for god sake.... because.

This is is what i cant get my head around.. its like we can name every body......... But not this women for reasons about moral compus apparently setting example or some thing, but its ok to name every one else.. i dont get it eitehr dont worry

[Espresso]

Let’s put it in other words. Place the name of the accuser. Break the privacy law. Run the risk of defamation and this forum closed.
You wanna read about F1 in this forum accept the rules and move forward!

[Mosin123]

Let’s put it in other words. Place the name of the accuser. Break the privacy law. Run the risk of defamation and this forum closed.
You wanna read about F1 in this forum accept the rules and move forward!

i highly doubt any ones words in this forum are going to damage her reputation, and no one will damage her reputation more than her self should her accusations turn out to not be true, which seeing as Horner is still in the job, and is looking more and more likely as the days go by to remain in said job, and said accuser still hasnt taken the matter to civil court. her reputation cant be any more damaged than it is now, its more likely Horner would sue her for defamation, seeing as his, and his companys reputation HAS been damaged.

And i cant stand the bloke.

[Watto]

Let’s put it in other words. Place the name of the accuser. Break the privacy law. Run the risk of defamation and this forum closed.
You wanna read about F1 in this forum accept the rules and move forward!

i highly doubt any ones words in this forum are going to damage her reputation, and no one will damage her reputation more than her self should her accusations turn out to not be true, which seeing as Horner is still in the job, and is looking more and more likely as the days go by to remain in said job, and said accuser still hasnt taken the matter to civil court. her reputation cant be any more damaged than it is now, its more likely Horner would sue her for defamation, seeing as his, and his companys reputation HAS been damaged.

And i cant stand the bloke.

The one article that has named her has been threatened by Horners lawyers (yes obviously for other elements of the article can be to a cause for that to).

The she hasn't gone to civil court too isn't much an argument (the same as I argue Horners saying the leaked images/conversations aren't real), She may well be advised by her legal team that toy are best to follow RB internal processes to the end first. You can show then you tried to resolve the issue but couldn't as an example could be part of the civil case. Likewise Horner not denying the texts being real, is it possible some of them are and some aren't you can't deny; but its probably pretty unwise to publicly fabricating evidence, again follow RB internal processes first (add RB would probably prefer her didn't take any further action and extend PR/everything going on behind the scenes).

Its probably wise for them to not publish her name/details unless she makes public comment/takes civil action.

[PapayaFan481]

The last time I searched Geri Halliwell's name appeared 62 + 1 times on this thread.
So why should Horner's wife be named in this thread?

Well, firstly no-one is accusing Gerinof anything, secondly she is one of the most famous women in the world.

The accuser isn't famous and doesn't live their life in the public eye. Rightly or wrongly, I think wrongly, there are different standards applied when someone has chosen to live in the public eye by daring to have a career in entertainment etc.

[DChemTech]

Oh, come on.
The name has been known for a really long time now and I can't imagine that the poster of the picture wouldn't have been able to figure it out very easily himself.
Why he would post the picture here and ask for the name instead of complying with his desire for knowledge with minimal effort and Google, I don't know, but Wouter confirming the name really isn't a big deal.

Still, resharing it is problematic. An importent part of why gossip and drivel stick with people for the rest of their lives is not because a few outlets report on it, but because many in unscrupulously share it. If you want to see honest, fact based discussion of issues, don't participate in naming and shaming. It sets a bad example, and all these contributions, however small, do matter.

So, its ok to name and shame CH, but not the accuser? because naming the accuser would be setting a bad example, but it is ok to name and shame the accused because, thats a good example? are both not the exact same thing?

I dont want to cause a row..... But isnt that double standards? hypocritical even?

You can name CH, but not the one whos name we shall dare not speak? LOL

Naming Horner, yes, as he was the one that stood accussed. Shaming, no, and I definitely disagree with some of the discourse here in that respect. But that is aside of whether the victim should be named.
They are not equals - there is an asymmetry between being the accused and the victim, there is an asymmetry in your name voluntarily being put forward by the team or being shared by media without consent. She is already in a vulnerable position, and her name being widely disseminated does not help in that (unfortunately it is not unlikely some 'fans' will blame her, or at least hold her partially responsible, for the damage done to the team or F1, for example), and there is no facility to her name being known when it comes to the whole discussion. It does not add any relevant information. The fact that some news outlets already reported it does not change that, that they did it does not mean we should. There is no need to sink the bar to the lowest common denominator.

[Watto]

Still, resharing it is problematic. An importent part of why gossip and drivel stick with people for the rest of their lives is not because a few outlets report on it, but because many in unscrupulously share it. If you want to see honest, fact based discussion of issues, don't participate in naming and shaming. It sets a bad example, and all these contributions, however small, do matter.

So, its ok to name and shame CH, but not the accuser? because naming the accuser would be setting a bad example, but it is ok to name and shame the accused because, thats a good example? are both not the exact same thing?

I dont want to cause a row..... But isnt that double standards? hypocritical even?

You can name CH, but not the one whos name we shall dare not speak? LOL

Naming Horner, yes, as he was the one that stood accussed. Shaming, no, and I definitely disagree with some of the discourse here in that respect. But that is aside of whether the victim should be named.
They are not equals - there is an asymmetry between being the accused and the victim, there is an asymmetry in your name voluntarily being put forward by the team or being shared by media without consent. She is already in a vulnerable position, and her name being widely disseminated does not help in that (unfortunately it is not unlikely some 'fans' will blame her, or at least hold her partially responsible, for the damage done to the team or F1, for example), and there is no facility to her name being known when it comes to the whole discussion. It does not add any relevant information. The fact that some news outlets already reported it does not change that, that they did it does not mean we should. There is no need to sink the bar to the lowest common denominator.

yes and why in very wary of it CH could step down accept responsibility some - a small minority mind you- would blame her for ruining him/attack her, seen it kinda happen too much with sports and passionate supporters that don’t know the limit.

[everythingisawesome]

I think mods will do everyone a favour to close this thread.
This has nothing to do with the sport, this is an individual's life.

[Watto]

I’m starting to think even more reading Sawards blog, his comments and tweets he knows more than he’s letting on


I’m extremely wary it comes across as very Horner aligning, and that an obvious sign of weakness believing a source too much or that it can be misleading. Also I’m not really fond of how almost effortlessly he dismisses the woman’s complaints. The CH typing etc side feels poorly though out.

But lots of detail both his blog and Twitter comments don’t point to me as something he hadn’t considered comments like when he was asked if the images could be fake he refers to them as being analysed by ‘pixel regularity’ and have found no tampering not clear though is when that was done through the investigation or after the lead/ probably tend towards the latter cause I doubt he’s have assess to the KC report though if he is CH aligned or connections to the Thai owner perhaps he has- which I’m not sure how I feel about tbh had a source but wary that maybe it leads to clouded judgement.

The pretty well defined timeline of the messages before anyone else I think.

He’s very very careful in what he’s said… sometimes hasn’t said directly. Pointing at an app to create false WA conversation maybe he’s thinking the CH typing is creating a fake conversation and capturing it as you went? Perhaps leaving too many questions of what point he is trying to make. But seems through various replies he’s considered more options and had researched more than the article indicates

[clownfish]

I think mods will do everyone a favour to close this thread.
This has nothing to do with the sport, this is an individual's life.

CH is a team boss, the alleged incidents took place with a subordinate employee, sometimes during work trips.

If he's having an affair, or doing whatever with some random person outside of work hours, then I agree it's nothing to do with F1. But that's not the case, so the allegations are relevant.

[CHT]

I think mods will do everyone a favour to close this thread.
This has nothing to do with the sport, this is an individual's life.

CH is a team boss, the alleged incidents took place with a subordinate employee, sometimes during work trips.

If he's having an affair, or doing whatever with some random person outside of work hours, then I agree it's nothing to do with F1. But that's not the case, so the allegations are relevant.

From where I am living dating among office staff and colleagues is very common, and some end up in marriage too.
Looking at the female employee, I do have reason to believe she is more than capable of taking care of herself not just in WA but in person. And if there was any physical or sexual assault by CH on the female employee, it will become a criminal charge and there is no way a KC or Red Bull to dimiss the case or sweep it under the carpet or have RB owners backing CH, or have the entire RBR team cheering on for CH.

I am guessing if CH is TP for Haas, no one will be keen in this discussion because Haas is no threat to WDC and WCC

[Rikhart]

I think mods will do everyone a favour to close this thread.
This has nothing to do with the sport, this is an individual's life.

CH is a team boss, the alleged incidents took place with a subordinate employee, sometimes during work trips.

If he's having an affair, or doing whatever with some random person outside of work hours, then I agree it's nothing to do with F1. But that's not the case, so the allegations are relevant.

From where I am living dating among office staff and colleagues is very common, and some end up in marriage too.
Looking at the female employee, I do have reason to believe she is more than capable of taking care of herself not just in WA but in person. And if there was any physical or sexual assault by CH on the female employee, it will become a criminal charge and there is no way a KC or Red Bull will dimiss the case.

I am guessing if CH is TP for Haas, no one will be keen in this discussion because Haas is no threat to WDC and WCC

Bingo. We all realise where the "outrage" comes from.