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.
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.
Who said she was a "lowly office staffer"?? She's allegedly the PA of a CEO. She probably earns more than any of us on here. But that does not mean she is a public figure, unlike Geri or Christian.
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.
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.
But some posters really could do with reassessing their moral compasses.
.
You write a very long story here, but I think 90% of the people here (or more) think exactly the same as what I have made red,
so your entire argument applies to that maybe 10% or even less. You can't expect everyone to have the same opinion.
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.
Why the focus on consensual relationships and policy? I don't think many in this thread are hung up on whether Christian Horner and the woman had a consensual affair with each other. That is between them and if it's against Red Bull policy then that's a matter for Red Bull.
Those of us who are being critical of the matter and calling for more action are doing so because the leaked evidence shows clearly that consent was withdrawn and Horner's behaviour then strayed into sexual harassment. It doesn't matter what Red Bull's policies on sexual harassment are as it is explicitly against UK law. Red Bull's policies can only be layered on top of the fundamental legal position.
We have compelling evidence of Horner breaking a serious law in the public domain. At the very least that deserves public statement on why that evidence isn't real, doesn't show what it appears to show, etc. It needs the FIA to look into it as under the sporting regulations they have a duty to make sure all competitors run their teams in a manner in keeping with the values of the sport (which one would presume means making sure they comply with the law), failure to do so has to equate to tacit acceptance of Red Bull's approach. And Red Bull should be making a statement to at least give detail for why the grievance was dismissed, and why they are in full support of the way Horner has conducted himself. It's not good enough to just clam up and tell us that a secret investigation carried out for the company by a KC hired by the company to protect the interests of the company was conducted and that the board then dismissed the grievance.
The #Metoo movement has been a real mixed bag, with some cases of men losing careers over relatively innocuous actions. I don't want to see that happen to Horner. But the movement was also born out of necessity to push back against the rich and powerful taking advantage of and abusing people. The solution isn't secret investigations and behind closed doors shady deals to clear people - it is transparency of process and evidence (where appropriate), and proportionate response where wrong has been done.
If Horner has been stitched up by some sting operation to sully his name and remove him from his role then transparency will clear his name and help shine a light on the perpetrators, who should then face the full force of the law for their actions. If he is guilty then again transparency is needed so that people can see justice being done, he needs to go, and Red Bull need to answer serious questions about why they cleared him in the first place.
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.
.....
I am surprised that this is your take away? I am not reading that anything in the supposed WhatsApp and relationship is "appropriate" in any kind.
But this is not the question, the question is if he needs to be fired. Right? Maybe this is a misunderstanding in the discussion.
Fun fact: Guess which current team managers in top motorsports got into a relation with and married a subordinate?
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?
.... 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. ..... 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.
Sorry, but this is wrong for Europe. Usual European law is, that private is private. Walmart tried to push this US rule to Germany and was immediately stopped at a court.
The only clear rule is that if you have a relation to a subordinate, you need to have a third person present/acknowledging for any loan related discussions or promotions.
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.
Well, this is what you read into them. Clear fact is, that huge parts of the discussions, of the topic and maybe of the Whatsapp chat are missing. If you put the Whatsapps in chronology (which is not matching the file names) you immediately see that there are months missing. I think it is nearly 2 years. In the first part it is bushed up what people here interpret as a "no" in me-too terms as it is if you do not interpret it bad most probably more a "no I am watching TV now". Then there comes the ending (which is about the middle of the leaked files) and this is actually where she complains about not travelling with him anymore...
I feel that some interpretations here are quite wild. And they are not more but interpretations of a strongly shortened, inconclusive due to unclear sorting and unclear due to verbal discussions Whatsapp chat.
I would recommend to dial back some interpretations...
Why the focus on consensual relationships and policy? I don't think many in this thread are hung up on whether Christian Horner and the woman had a consensual affair with each other. That is between them and if it's against Red Bull policy then that's a matter for Red Bull.
Those of us who are being critical of the matter and calling for more action are doing so because the leaked evidence shows clearly that consent was withdrawn and Horner's behaviour then strayed into sexual harassment. It doesn't matter what Red Bull's policies on sexual harassment are as it is explicitly against UK law. Red Bull's policies can only be layered on top of the fundamental legal position.
First, I can't speak to the specifics of how UK law works. I am broadly assuming that the corporate entity is expected to follow it's own policies and procedures which will meet and sometimes exceed those required by law. So lets focus on the "exceed" aspect. While I don't know UK law, I can imagine that it may not explicitly forbid manager/subordinate relationships. Rather it likely focuses on specific negative actions regardless of how they came about.
My point is... what exactly are the boundaries set by Red Bull? Do they meet the bare minimums or maybe they cover more specific situations. For example, what behavior is expected in a manager/subordinate relationships? Are they even allowed? I think there is fresh ground for the media (or even those here) to dig into. I think this gets to the heart of all of the speculation around the work performed by the KC and the decisions made from that investigation. We see lots of speculation as to the KC vs. Red Bull management making the decision. I have my opinions, but exactly how is that supposed to play out via Red Bull published employee governance rules? Where those followed?
The rest of your post, I broadly agree with the spirit of what you say and points you call out. And those perspectives are being voiced frequently so there is little reason for me to pile onto each one. I was thinking that my post you quoted should show that I feel the type of behavior in the messages is not acceptable and can't be explained away with thing such as "mutual consent", etc. and my dissatisfaction with so many want to justify the behavior as a private matter. I just wanted to call out something that I think holds key details, but seems to not be a topic for discussion. I also want more transparency as I am curious but at the same time understand I am actually owed nothing.
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
Sorry, but this is wrong for Europe. Usual European law is, that private is private. Walmart tried to push this US rule to Germany and was immediately stopped at a court.
The only clear rule is that if you have a relation to a subordinate, you need to have a third person present/acknowledging for any loan related discussions or promotions.
Again, I can't speak to laws elsewhere. As you explain it, there seem to me to be significant room for abusive behavior. And this is playing out on the world stage so it is being judged at that level. One one hand it is being judged by the highest standards (which is where the outrage at CH comes from) and maybe on the other hand is the lowest standards (where this type of behavior can remain unpunished). The chasm between those two is where the polarization exists. Might this same chasm on the ethics and corporate responsibilities of this also exist inside Red Bull ownership?
In the first part it is bushed up what people here interpret as a "no" in me-too terms as it is if you do not interpret it bad most probably more a "no I am watching TV now".
How can I reconcile those two statements? And apologies if I am misreading the meaning of the larger section I selectively quoted rom above, but you are saying you don't think the WhatsApp content appropriate, but you then spend some time trying to generate more sympathetic explanation of the chat messages? For example the "no" as not really being "no" and saying it may apply to some other unspoken context outside of the message. This is what I am talking about. I also have no desire to litigate here what is being said in the WhatsApp chats as that is an exercise with no rewards. I agree it is a snapshot of a larger discussion and that there is more to the story. But I also think enough context and damning statements exists to come to reasonable conclusions that it was inappropriate and likely in most of the western world would have resulted in some type of punishment for CH.
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one."
First, I can't speak to the specifics of how UK law works. I am broadly assuming that the corporate entity is expected to follow it's own policies and procedures which will meet and sometimes exceed those required by law. So lets focus on the "exceed" aspect. While I don't know UK law, I can imagine that it may not explicitly forbid manager/subordinate relationships. Rather it likely focuses on specific negative actions regardless of how they came about.
In the UK then there's no law against a manager and a subordinate having an affair, but as another poster mentioned it is explicitly against many internal policies at large corporates precisely because of these difficulties that can arise. Even if it's not explicitly against policy it would be advisable to inform HR of the relationship as early as practical to make sure they guard against any conflict of interest, inadvertent or otherwise.
It's still the law that is the critical issue though. There was a new law that is relevant that came into effect in October 2023, that is summarised here: https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights ... een-passed. AIUI the law prior to this adjustment covered more or less the same responsibilities without being as explicit.
...The chasm between those two is where the polarization exists. Might this same chasm on the ethics and corporate responsibilities of this also exist inside Red Bull ownership?
Yes, I agree. If it would be crystal clear they would fire or back him.
But as neither of the two is the case I agree on the polarization. This is what is now used by Jos. But I also think this is going away...either they sort it out like men (by adding more money or whatever Jos wants from Horny) or in the end they fire him.
In the first part it is bushed up what people here interpret as a "no" in me-too terms as it is if you do not interpret it bad most probably more a "no I am watching TV now".
How can I reconcile those two statements? And apologies if I am misreading the meaning of the larger section I selectively quoted rom above, but you are saying you don't think the WhatsApp content appropriate, but you then spend some time trying to generate more sympathetic explanation of the chat messages? For example the "no" as not really being "no" and saying it may apply to some other unspoken context outside of the message. This is what I am talking about. I also have no desire to litigate here what is being said in the WhatsApp chats as that is an exercise with no rewards. I agree it is a snapshot of a larger discussion and that there is more to the story. But I also think enough context and damning statements exists to come to reasonable conclusions that it was inappropriate and likely in most of the western world would have resulted in some type of punishment for CH.
Why do you think there is no punishment? It was already reported that RB pays 1Mio and Jos is obviously also in the game of rewards...with your experience it should be clear to you, that this has strong impact on the gratification of Horner.
For the inappropriate: Of course it is inappropriate to have this type of relationship with your PA. But I guess our definition of "inappropriate" is different. In the end the "no" is of course very interesting for this definition. The "no" as literally a "no, I am watching rugby" in the middle of them jerking off together regularly in consent...my definition is in the direction of highly unprofessional. Maybe this is wrong because of the lack of context, but I feel like the interpretation close to rape by some here is even more likely to be wrong and over the top.
In the UK then there's no law against a manager and a subordinate having an affair, but as another poster mentioned it is explicitly against many internal policies at large corporates precisely because of these difficulties that can arise.
You know that Horner makes the rules at RBR, right?
Even if it's not explicitly against policy it would be advisable to inform HR of the relationship as early as practical to make sure they guard against any conflict of interest, inadvertent or otherwise.
You made my day...I just imagined the discussion:
"Dear HR manager, I would like to inform you that F.... and myself jerk off together in hotels and private jets."
"Dear HR manager, as jerking off with F.... is not good for my marriage if it comes out I will not take my PA anymore in jets and the same hotel. Just want to inform you as this might blow."
"Dear HR manager, I have to file a complaint against Horny. After jerking off with him he does not take me anymore to his fancy hotels and private jets..."
Sorry, can not stay serious too much on this...there is serious me too and there is this case where it more looks like cashing out to me.
In the UK then there's no law against a manager and a subordinate having an affair, but as another poster mentioned it is explicitly against many internal policies at large corporates precisely because of these difficulties that can arise.
You know that Horner makes the rules at RBR, right?
Even if it's not explicitly against policy it would be advisable to inform HR of the relationship as early as practical to make sure they guard against any conflict of interest, inadvertent or otherwise.
You made my day...I just imagined the discussion:
"Dear HR manager, I would like to inform you that F.... and myself jerk off together in hotels and private jets."
"Dear HR manager, as jerking off with F.... is not good for my marriage if it comes out I will not take my PA anymore in jets and the same hotel. Just want to inform you as this might blow."
"Dear HR manager, I have to file a complaint against Horny. After jerking off with him he does not take me anymore to his fancy hotels and private jets..."
It's still the law that is the critical issue though. There was a new law that is relevant that came into effect in October 2023,
Oct 2024, see the link. And according to the Whatsapps it ended even before end of the 2023 season.
Horner does not unilaterally make the rules, he has an HR department and board oversight above him.
Yes, you are encouraged to inform HR. Not of explicit acts like that but if you are having a relationship with someone at work it's a good way of covering your ass where a conflict of interest arises. For instance, imagine if when the budget cap came in Horner made a decision to keep one PA and get rid of another. Can you see how it would be advisable to protect himself and the company in that situation?
I was using the new law as an example as it was one of the first links that came up. The October 2023 law change is solidifying the law and including more explicit language, rather than being completely new. That site also has another page that details the requirements that were in place since 2020: https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/news/sig ... m-the-ehrc
Notice it even explicitly covers out of work activity. There is a lot of onus placed upon the company to be fair and transparent in their investigations and rulings, and to take all reasonable steps to prevent the behaviour Horner was exhibiting in those WhatsApp messages.
Yes, you are encouraged to inform HR. Not of explicit acts like that but if you are having a relationship with someone at work it's a good way of covering your ass where a conflict of interest arises. For instance, imagine if when the budget cap came in Horner made a decision to keep one PA and get rid of another. Can you see how it would be advisable to protect himself and the company in that situation?
Do you want to convince me that it is unprofessional when I write that it is highly unprofessional just...let me count...2 lines before your quote starts? What is your point?
Yes, you are encouraged to inform HR. Not of explicit acts like that but if you are having a relationship with someone at work it's a good way of covering your ass where a conflict of interest arises. For instance, imagine if when the budget cap came in Horner made a decision to keep one PA and get rid of another. Can you see how it would be advisable to protect himself and the company in that situation?
Do you want to convince me that it is unprofessional when I write that it is highly unprofessional just...let me count...2 lines before your quote starts? What is your point?
Horner does not unilaterally make the rules, he has an HR department and board oversight above him.
What else should the head/director of HR be other than a direct report to the CEO in this size of company?
Somewhat as myurr has said, He might be the CEO/Boss but companies like this have oversight. HR to make sure the company is working within the law, you could argue if its the CEO it makes things tricky for them; though I guess in this case they took the complaint to RBGmbH that own RBR. Red Bull technology. But if HR saw issues they could report to them the shareholders in the team, lawyers would/could report to the board in situations like this to make a call. Board can easily choose to ignore solid evidence that something wrong has occured which is why their are civil courts etc.
Saward has made some little updates in his latest blog. Which makes for some interesting points depending on exactly what he knows and how reliable it is.
Too many F1 fans have jumped to conclusions about this whole story and have condemned without knowing what is going on. There has been so much misinformation (wrong information) and disinformation (false information) around the story, not to mention wild defamatory speculation on social media. No-one is thinking about the people getting hurt in all of this. It is not a TV show. There are real people. No-one has a right to name nor to accuse. There are families involved. Kids too.
There are a few other pits and pieces in there where he tried to address the drama
