Red Bull investigate Horner for inappropriate behaviour.

Yes. Anyone who hasn't been condemned by a court of law is innocent.
Why people forget that simple fact ?

 

That's debatable in some cases.

 

In which cases ?

 

Some cases show everybody who is found innocent is not innocent. I won't get into certain cases I know of.

 

Well, you don't get a criminal record unless you are condemned by a court of law.
Being investigated, detained, arrested or charged is no proof of culpability.
I think that's valid in most western countries. That's what I am getting at.

 

Absolutely agree on everything.

 

The case when I come home from work early and I find my significant other and the mailman half naked in the bedroom.

If you happen to stumble into such a situation, you may assume that he was helping her with breast cancer prevention or that they were engaging in some other innocent activity, but that is your personal choice. I would not make that assumption; I'd politely ask both of them to permanently leave - without due process and without conviction.

 

You may find they are commiting no CRIMINAL activity by engaging in consenting hanky-panky.

 

True.
But then again nobody asked for Horner to be thrown into prison, right?

 

Home invasion ..at least

 

Not really. Guilt and innocence are states of being. You may be found not guilty (not “innocent” by the way) of a crime by a court of law but if you committed the crime you’re guilty, just not in a legal sense.

 

+1!

 

Personally, I respect the courts' decisions, not the verdicts of trials by media.

 

Perhaps not, but some would like him to leave his job, even after the internal enquiry exonerated him !

 

I agree but that’s a different matter. Court/jury verdicts only establish guilt or the absence of guilt as a matter of law, not as a matter of fact. As an example, I was issued a citation for excessive speed. I was guilty. The court did not find me guilty by way of a plea bargain. The record says I’m not guilty….but in fact I am. As an extreme example, a person can commit murder but never be arrested, charged or even suspected. His record says the law has not found him guilty of murder. But he is.

 

just like you might like your significant other to leave, after you found her half naked in the bed smoking a cigarette next to your neighbor?

Not all decisions must be based on "beyond a reasonable doubt". In many situations "more likely than not" is an adequat standard of proof. Posting opinions on an internet forum seems to fall in the latter category, I'd suggest.

 

It's not clear cut, I agree and varies from country to country.
For example, excessive speed per se isn't a crime in UK; it's a driving offense. There are relatively few stops by police for excessive speeds: fixed speed cameras take care of that aspect. They are linked to a central that locates the offender by reading the number plate, prints the fine and sends it by mail almost without human intervention.
The Driving Vehicle Licence Authority is automatically alerted and deducts points from your driving licence.
It's very efficient, and I don't see a way to "plea bargain" here !

 

Its not had its day in court yet. Just the first stage in employment law an internal investigation. But given it was a snr member of the company it should have been done by an agreed 3rd party and because it didn't has added to the mess. soon it goes to court the better.

This is why I hate the F1 thread all the drama

 

This may never go to court, unless the alleged victim report Horner to the police for harassment.
My opinion is that her case goes weaker by the day, with all the unwanted publicity it has attracted.
It becomes very difficult for the court to judge something which has become a media circus.

Yes, I agree that the tone has been lowered in F1 in general.

 

Toto did own a majority of the team. He sold part of his share to one of the recent additional sponsors. So, yes, he does own 1/3 of the share, but he also owns the cash from selling his previous ownership.

 

Red Bull drinks boss Oliver Mintzlaff has given his vote of confidence to Horner. This episode is probably over. It’ll be interesting to see how Poppa Verstappen and The Doctor respond to this.



Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Horner is a tough guy.

 

Cleared again as her appeal is rejected

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

i’m sure Horners wife doesnt think he’s cleared.

 

—An independent and unknown barrister - fully paid for by Red Bull - then conducted an independent investigation and came to the conclusion: Horner had done nothing wrong with regard to the now suspended woman. She exercised her right of appeal, after which a second barrister, together with the original barrister, took a renewed look at the case. It took them many months to reach a conclusion.


Will the complainant go to court?
It reportedly took so long because the barristers did not see eye to eye: the new barrister allegedly found Horner guilty, while the first maintained that there was nothing wrong. As of Thursday afternoon, however, the investigation had concluded: 'Horner did nothing improper'. How the two barristers finally came to an agreement is unclear. The chances of this ever coming out are virtually nil, as both lawyers have a duty of confidentiality.

With Red Bull GmbH's announcement, the case has by no means come to an end. For instance, Red Bull must now decide what happens to the still-suspended woman. Will she get her job back or will she be dismissed? The woman must also decide whether to accept the outcome of the investigation. GPblog has learned that she is emphatically leaning towards taking the case to the civil court.—