Christian Horner under Investigation

[mendis]

The telegraph is reporting it now as well: https://twitter.com/telegraphsport/stat ... SykhTElDJQ

Fair to say it's most likely true with so many outlets covering it. They better have a really good reason to be celebrating International Women's Day like this.

Ideally, she should be fired for falsifying a complaint if that is indeed the case. If there is no evidence (not the filmsy whatsapp screenshots available online), then it's an attempt to tarnish another employee. If the internal investigation lead by a KC barrister has looked at the available evidence and determined, it doesn't justify the harassment complaint, it amounts to tarnishing reputation of the accused employee. So it would be right to simply let her go. If the woman thinks she is right, then she should file a legal case and if she doesn't, she was making this up all this while.

[myurr]

Ideally, she should be fired for falsifying a complaint if that is indeed the case. If there is no evidence (not the filmsy whatsapp screenshots available online), then it's an attempt to tarnish another employee. If the internal investigation lead by a KC barrister has looked at the available evidence and determined, it doesn't justify the harassment complaint, it amounts to tarnishing reputation of the accused employee. So it would be right to simply let her go. If the woman thinks she is right, then she should file a legal case and if she doesn't, she was making this up all this while.

For a start we've previously established the screenshots you're looking at aren't the ones from the original leak.

But now you're suggesting that if a woman reports sexual harassment in the workplace that if the company finds insufficient evidence to prove her right, or dismisses the case for any other reason such as a technicality, that she should be fired for raising the complaint in the first place?

[izzy]

Ideally, she should be fired for falsifying a complaint if that is indeed the case. If there is no evidence (not the filmsy whatsapp screenshots available online), then it's an attempt to tarnish another employee. If the internal investigation lead by a KC barrister has looked at the available evidence and determined, it doesn't justify the harassment complaint, it amounts to tarnishing reputation of the accused employee. So it would be right to simply let her go.

The WhatsApp screenshots most likely came from her phone didn't they. WhatsApp is secure in every other way. So she may have cooperated in the exposure. With Jos, in his battle with Horner, which Horner seems to have won.

As well as making the original complaint of course, which Jos may well have had a hand in.

Also she was obviously having too much fun

[astracrazy]

Ideally, she should be fired for falsifying a complaint if that is indeed the case. If there is no evidence (not the filmsy whatsapp screenshots available online), then it's an attempt to tarnish another employee. If the internal investigation lead by a KC barrister has looked at the available evidence and determined, it doesn't justify the harassment complaint, it amounts to tarnishing reputation of the accused employee. So it would be right to simply let her go. If the woman thinks she is right, then she should file a legal case and if she doesn't, she was making this up all this while.

For a start we've previously established the screenshots you're looking at aren't the ones from the original leak.

But now you're suggesting that if a woman reports sexual harassment in the workplace that if the company finds insufficient evidence to prove her right, or dismisses the case for any other reason such as a technicality, that she should be fired for raising the complaint in the first place?

Whatever the leaks are, no one knows for sure still if they are 100% real or not.

You are just wrongly assuming you know it all, which you don't. There is going to be more we don't know than do at this point. It's no coincidence that more information this week has been slowly coming out. It's also no coincidence this has happened the day after the last day she could appeal.

It's likely actually the KC came to a different opinion and what she could appeal could well of actually been something against her, not CH as everyone presumed.

No one is suggesting she would be sacked/suspended for making a sexual harassment complaint, but it is 100% fireable if that complaint was made with some level of falsified evidence.

[Watto]

Ideally, she should be fired for falsifying a complaint if that is indeed the case. If there is no evidence (not the filmsy whatsapp screenshots available online), then it's an attempt to tarnish another employee. If the internal investigation lead by a KC barrister has looked at the available evidence and determined, it doesn't justify the harassment complaint, it amounts to tarnishing reputation of the accused employee. So it would be right to simply let her go. If the woman thinks she is right, then she should file a legal case and if she doesn't, she was making this up all this while.

For a start we've previously established the screenshots you're looking at aren't the ones from the original leak.

But now you're suggesting that if a woman reports sexual harassment in the workplace that if the company finds insufficient evidence to prove her right, or dismisses the case for any other reason such as a technicality, that she should be fired for raising the complaint in the first place?

The only theory I have is she falsified *some* of the WA messages which I wonder what Saward was hitting at in his blog.

RB would want something solid or they’re trending in some thin ice.

[PapayaFan481]

Not so thin whilst they're paying her full pay to not be at work. Perhaps she has appealed the decision and so RBR have elected it is best to take this step.

We simply don't know.

[KimiRai]

[astracrazy]

Not so thin whilst they're paying her full pay to not be at work. Perhaps she has appealed the decision and so RBR have elected it is best to take this step.

We simply don't know.

No we don't, it just adds more fuel to the fire.

Surely though you'd suspend the person who the complaint is against, or both, I've not heard of the person making the complaint be suspended before whilst the accused would carry on working? That includes from day 1 of this.

[PapayaFan481]

This could be about to get even messier....

[PapayaFan481]

Not so thin whilst they're paying her full pay to not be at work. Perhaps she has appealed the decision and so RBR have elected it is best to take this step.

We simply don't know.

No we don't, it just adds more fuel to the fire.

Surely though you'd suspend the person who the complaint is against, or both, I've not heard of the person making the complaint be suspended before?

I would tend to agree, but RBR may have felt it needed Horner still doing his job, for some reason.

[Watto]

Not so thin whilst they're paying her full pay to not be at work. Perhaps she has appealed the decision and so RBR have elected it is best to take this step.

We simply don't know.

true but I guess that they didn’t suspend Horner after the accusations. From reports she has some high priced lawyers on her side etc.

[organic]

https://news.sky.com/story/christian-ho ... s-13089164

Employee suspended according to Sky news

[Rodak]

This topic has become a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Watto]

https://news.sky.com/story/christian-ho ... s-13089164

Employee suspended according to Sky news

That article references her received a legal letter on Monday and has 5 days to respond. So wonder if she’s been accused of fabricating evidence? And RB are taking action. One of the previous articles kinda makes it clearer than a lot they don’t know if the leaks area real or fake. So curious.

[astracrazy]

Not so thin whilst they're paying her full pay to not be at work. Perhaps she has appealed the decision and so RBR have elected it is best to take this step.

We simply don't know.

No we don't, it just adds more fuel to the fire.

Surely though you'd suspend the person who the complaint is against, or both, I've not heard of the person making the complaint be suspended before?

I would tend to agree, but RBR may have felt it needed Horner still doing his job, for some reason.

Which is a bad look isn't it even if that is the case, or of course the alternative is actually this has been some scheme against Horner and the people inside the circle know this.