Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
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
He also said in the comments that the KC cleared Horner so he's taking it on face value that Horner is innocent. Everything else in his investigation is premised on the presumption that Horner has been correctly cleared. He's actively looking for reasons to explain how Horner could be innocent.
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
Sexual harassment is not sexual assault, just as dating in the office is not sexual harassment. Conflating the two is disingenuous.
If CH was TP for Haas you wouldn't be defending him. I'd still be calling for proper investigation as this is a subject close to my heart.
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
In the UK it is common for top level roles to have employment clauses preventing them from entering relationships with subordinate employees due to the conflict of interest, potential for sexual harassment claims etc.
I still don't understand how you can be following this thread and think it's about anything to do with criminal charges. It is about an employee allegedly being put in a position by her boss where she feels under pressure to perform sexual acts to keep her job.
Last edited by clownfish on 12 Mar 2024, 13:02, edited 1 time in total.
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
Sexual harassment is not sexual assault, just as dating in the office is not sexual harassment. Conflating the two is disingenuous.
If CH was TP for Haas you wouldn't be defending him. I'd still be calling for proper investigation as this is a subject close to my heart.
does it mean that whenever there is a suspected sexual harassment case we need to start a thread?
does it mean that whenever there is a suspected sexual harassment case we need to start a thread?
If it involves a team principal then yes.
So it is about being selective when it comes to showing compassion to sexual harassment victims.
I guess the profile of the accused is more important victim or the act itself.
does it mean that whenever there is a suspected sexual harassment case we need to start a thread?
If it involves a team principal then yes.
So it is about being selective when it comes to showing compassion to sexual harassment victims.
I guess the profile of the accused is more important victim or the act itself.
You asked specifically about creating a new thread. I'll add to my answer that a thread should also be created if there is a case of sexual harassment that involves any senior manager of any team, or if there is a culture of covering up such claims exposed at any team. The latter may be better served by a generic thread on covering up sexual harassment in the world of F1 but I'd leave that decision to the mods.
It's all hypothetical anyway as the only case we're aware of is that involving Horner. Are there other cases we're ignoring? Why do you think this case doesn't deserve a thread, and why do you believe so strongly that you're trying to catch others in logical traps to defend shutting down discussion on the matter?
It will be interesting to see how the topic develops further. As we hear behind the scenes, not only Verstappen but also Adrian Newey are said to be dissatisfied with the current situation. Horner wants to move it completely into the RB17 hypercar project for budget cap reasons. The design guru explained in a podcast just six months ago that he regretted on an “emotional level” that he never worked with Ferrari or Lewis Hamilton.
does it mean that whenever there is a suspected sexual harassment case we need to start a thread?
If it involves a team principal then yes.
So it is about being selective when it comes to showing compassion to sexual harassment victims.
I guess the profile of the accused is more important victim or the act itself.
No, it's not that hard, is it?
Both the victim and the accused have a right to be protected, and innocent until proven guilty. But there are clear asymmetries in that whether or not Horner is guilty of misconduct, or even when he is innocent of legal but his actions do affect the social safety in the team, that has repercussions for RB racing. It is no surprise such repercussions as well as the surrounding process are discussed at an F1 forum (as long as it does not devolve to outright defamation, slander, and unsubstantiated accusation). Since this considers the TP of a specific team with consequences for that team, and since the team themselves communicated the matter, it is no wonder he is named. Which is different from the alleged victim, of whom disclosing the name is not relevant to process or consequences for the team, but can be harmful to the person(s) involved.
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
He also said in the comments that the KC cleared Horner so he's taking it on face value that Horner is innocent. Everything else in his investigation is premised on the presumption that Horner has been correctly cleared. He's actively looking for reasons to explain how Horner could be innocent.
Fair enough and you could well be right but I also think you’re grossly underestimating Joe too in the comments someone refers to a story of a f1 journo propositioning a young fan in a vague post, which Joe did get followed by their name and that the news floating around of pics and ‘disturbing’ emails floating around the internet of an underage relationship to which he immediately recognised her and age and that the rumor was nonsense- and that he seems to know ow the woman in this RB scandal
I think he could very easily be missing some information that makes everything he’s said as wrong, but I don’t think he’s simply working off the premise KC said case dismissed and then working back to find Horner innocent from there at a whim . That he’s investigated enough to where he thinks he can form a solid enough view from people with more information than any of us.
When reading over the last handful of pages in this thread it is interesting to see the perspectives as to the appropriateness (or not) of having relationships in a work environment. It is not uncommon for them to exist and they can happen without issue be allowed in the right situations. However, over the past few years or decades rules on how that should work have become much more defined. I expect how well defined is both a factor of company size, maturity (history in dealing with this topic) and location/cultural norms. Layer on top of that evolving personal opinions as to what is or isn’t acceptable, which in my opinion is also driven by evolving culture norms as well as the environment that each person grew up in within their professional career. That is a nice way for me to say that if you are older and maybe lived through a “boys will be boys” period then expectations for how things actually work today might feel quite foreign.
Maybe it has been covered in this thread or in the media, but what I think is missing is the specifics around what set of policies CH and the complainant would have been governed by? And how exactly do those policies call out what is allowable or not with respect to workplace relationships and behavior? I have spent my entire professional career in the US workforce and have seen quite a bit of change over the past 40+ years in this area. My experience is that it is the norm that relationships in which there is a supervisor and subordinate (or some other power differential) are specifically not allowed even if both parties consent. Or if they are allowed, they must be registered with HR. Of course, there is the potential that no policy exists, but I have not worked anywhere in the past decade in which no policy existed to cover this situation. In short, in no way would that behavior (even if consensual) be acceptable between co-workers who are in a manager subordinate organizational structure. As much as the press is looking into this, I wonder why this aspect (what entity did they both fall under, and what were the policies?) has not been talked about.
It's also quite disheartening to see posts here that effectively are saying that the behavior in the WhatsApp messages (if you believe they are real) or similar banter and “adult talk” is acceptable in a manager/subordinate situation even if consensual. That power differential concerns appear to be ignored or that consent makes it all acceptable. Policies against this type of behavior are in place for exactly the type of scenarios shown in those messages. You might start from a place of mutual consent, but if it falls apart, the possibility for negative consequences (coercion and/or retaliation that is purposeful or accidental, or overt or subtle.) are significant. The messages hint or indicate this is what was going on.
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
When reading over the last handful of pages in this thread it is interesting to see the perspectives as to the appropriateness (or not) of having relationships in a work environment. It is not uncommon for them to exist and they can happen without issue be allowed in the right situations. However, over the past few years or decades rules on how that should work have become much more defined. I expect how well defined is both a factor of company size, maturity (history in dealing with this topic) and location/cultural norms. Layer on top of that evolving personal opinions as to what is or isn’t acceptable, which in my opinion is also driven by evolving culture norms as well as the environment that each person grew up in within their professional career. That is a nice way for me to say that if you are older and maybe lived through a “boys will be boys” period then expectations for how things actually work today might feel quite foreign.
Maybe it has been covered in this thread or in the media, but what I think is missing is the specifics around what set of policies CH and the complainant would have been governed by? And how exactly do those policies call out what is allowable or not with respect to workplace relationships and behavior? I have spent my entire professional career in the US workforce and have seen quite a bit of change over the past 40+ years in this area. My experience is that it is the norm that relationships in which there is a supervisor and subordinate (or some other power differential) are specifically not allowed even if both parties consent. Or if they are allowed, they must be registered with HR. Of course, there is the potential that no policy exists, but I have not worked anywhere in the past decade in which no policy existed to cover this situation. In short, in no way would that behavior (even if consensual) be acceptable between co-workers who are in a manager subordinate organizational structure. As much as the press is looking into this, I wonder why this aspect (what entity did they both fall under, and what were the policies?) has not been talked about.
It's also quite disheartening to see posts here that effectively are saying that the behavior in the WhatsApp messages (if you believe they are real) or similar banter and “adult talk” is acceptable in a manager/subordinate situation even if consensual. That power differential concerns appear to be ignored or that consent makes it all acceptable. Policies against this type of behavior are in place for exactly the type of scenarios shown in those messages. You might start from a place of mutual consent, but if it falls apart, the possibility for negative consequences (coercion and/or retaliation that is purposeful or accidental, or overt or subtle.) are significant. The messages hint or indicate this is what was going on.
For me very true , i would go to HR if i would really like someone and tell them and HR would probably tell me to find another job no matter what position i am in.
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.
The complainant is connected with the rich and famous. The rich and famous all know each other. Its not a coincidence that the complainant knows Geri and U2. Which calls into question the narrative that she is some lowly office staffer.
To all those claiming this is simply a personal issue and nothing to do with the team, the woman was consenting, etc etc. You know, basically excusing Horner because, well I can't see any other reason than that some posters still have male chauvinist attitudes that belong in the 70s...
Imagine that you work in your dream industry, have worked very hard to achieve success. You enter into an ill advised relationship with the CEO of the company and for a while are content, however for whatever reason you decide that you want to end the relationship....
Your boss persists in trying to get sexual gratification from you, asking for images even when you've said no, pestering you at all hours, harassing you again and again, even though you've said no. They then tell you that you can stop all of this if you leave your job, a job you otherwise love.
Do you really think there is nothing wrong with this scenario??
You'll notice I have left the above gender neutral because, it shouldn't actually matter, male to female, female to male, male to male, female to female, any gender to any gender, it is wrong, there is a power imbalance in favour of the boss and it against CIVIL employment laws and, depending on what form the continued advances take, potentially against criminal law (though nothing in the leaks suggests anything criminal in the CH allegations).
To suggest that people only care because it is CH is frankly sick and insulting and actually says more about the mindset of the person suggesting that, than it does about those of us who have experienced, or supported someone who has experienced sexual harassment or who simply care about what is right.
That so many find it easy to believe the allegations is interesting and perhaps speaks to how CH is perceived by fans, perhaps another TP, such as Fred V would not get such a strong response, I also suspect that other members of the RBR management would be given more leaway, Newey for example.
FWIW I do not see any evidence that the leaked images were fake, however I accept that they could be. If they are real though, then my opinion is that Horner needs to go. If they are fake, then obviously the people responsible need to be subjected to appropriate legal penalties - such as a libel case.
I will also remind people that the requirement in civil proceedings is different than criminal, in criminal law the requirement to convict is "beyond all reasonable doubt" whereas in civil law a defendant can be found liable if "a preponderance of the evidence" supports that finding. IF they are real, any independent analysis would see that the images on there own, would satisfy either of these requirements, so there would need to be some pretty compelling counter evidence.
Anyway, this thread does have a place, because otherwise this topic would spill into the RBR team thread and other places. But some posters really could do with reassessing their moral compasses.
If I come across as blunt, I apologise, it's my ASD. Sometimes, like an F1 car aqua-planing, it gets out of my control.
