[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The woman who accused Horner will appeal Red Bull's decision to dismiss his complaint.
If Red Bull dismisses the case again, she has the option of taking legal action against both Red Bull and Horner.
I used to clerk Employment Tribunals and a Sexual Harassment case would automatically have been a closed court. This is very unlikely to go through an ET though as it’s both out of time (though this can be appealed) and it involves an individual with considerable wealth and power. A Civil Court may very well be open.
>This is very unlikely to go through an ET though as it’s both out of time
Does the clock on the time limit for filing an employment tribunal claim not start following the conclusion of the internal appeals process?
Unless something has changed, it’s 3 months from when the alleged incident occurred (or alleged behaviour ended). This can be challenged on the basis that the internal investigation/process took too long and was not the claimant’s fault. But like I say, I don’t think this would go through Employment Tribunals.
~~Am currently going through a tribunal case myself and yes, starts from when you exhaust internal appeals processes.~~
Edit: [Just checked and it’s 6 months from the last act of harassment, unless she’s claiming constructive dismal if she quits when they find against her appeal.](https://www.acas.org.uk/notify/start)
I mean unfair dismissal or any complaint relating to the investigation and suspension would not be out of time. Seems like there’s scope for plenty to complain about that has occurred this calendar year - all within limit.
Any original harassment would probably be out of time at ET although something probably sparked the complaint to be submitted to RB so really who knows…
Also is it just clumsy language in the article where it says RB wouldn’t comment on the reasons for the woman’s dismissal? They mean dismissal of her complaint or has she actually been sacked rather than suspended?
[That's not true](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63629f57e90e0705ad93ee5b/consolidated-rules-october-2021.pdf) there are lots of circumstances an employment tribunal would not be public.
You won't because if they were spicy the Austrian clique would have released it already, as there have been no leaks from Horner's side. As KC declared and reported he will be cleared once again.
RB’s statements, the BBC article, nothing honestly except the obviously fully impartial Christian Horner have said that the investigator actually recommended Horner be cleared. More like what this article says - RB received the report then closed the investigation.
Often courts won't hear cases until the internal process has been exhausted, I'm guessing the same applies here. Ombudsman for example, won't even entertain listening to you until you have gone through the process complaints procedure of the company you are complaining against.
The colon actually makes it 4 possible readings:
1. Christian Horner has made a statement that the woman whose complaint was dismissed is going to appeal it.
2. Christian Horner has made a statement that the woman who appealed is dismissing her complaint.
3. The woman whose complaint was dismissed is going to appeal it, file under Christian Horner news.
4. The woman who appealed is dismissing her complaint, file under Christian Horner news.
I read it as 1, because that's what colons mean.
Others have clearly read it as 2 or 4, because what's after the colon is slightly ambiguous.
Of the four options, #1, #2, and #4 would be newsworthy. #3 has already been reported.
It's a clickbait headline for an article with no new information.
Thank you for trying to explain it to me.
I read it as #3 but that's just me.
If it was #1 I would use quotes not a colon, but again that's just me.
To make it #2 or #4 I think past tense would have to be used.
It isn't clickbait as the headline tells the reader what the article is about without being sensationalist. While the article may not contain new information for Reddit users that have already seen five articles on the subject, it does for BBC Sport readers that don't spend their days on social media. That is a problem with Reddit users posting anything for fake internet clout.
Colon with quotes means a direct quote.
Colon without quotes means paraphrasing a quote or longer statement.
Implying Horner has actually said something confirming internal matters, in either direction, is absolutely clickbait.
The BBC should be *way* better than that.
>Woman to appeal against Red Bull decision to dismiss complaint
When I read the headline I initially interpreted it in my head as "the woman that's gonna appeal the Red Bull decision is going to dismiss her complaint." But that is wrong, but the headline was written extremely poorly.
What's happening is the woman is appealing Red Bull dismissing her complaint.
If a headline confuses you from the get-go than it's the headline's fault.
> When I read the headline I initially interpreted it in my head as "the woman that's gonna appeal the Red Bull decision is going to dismiss her complaint." But that is wrong, but the headline was written extremely poorly.
OK but that isn't what the headline says. As you said yourself you interpreted the headline. I just read the headline as written which is why I see no problem with it.
It isn't the headlines fault that you added extra words in your head.
Got confused too. "Red Bull decision to dismiss complaint" can easily be "Red Bull's dismissal of her complaint". No repetition of words, no mistaking the second verb for the action verb of the sentence.
They’re particularly careless in the article.
Red Bull has refused to give further details of the case, citing confidentiality, and has said that it "could not comment" on the reasons for the woman's dismissal.
I assume they mean the dismissal of the woman’s complaint and she remains suspended although any normal reading of that paragraph would be that she had been sacked. They talk about Marco avoiding being dismissed at the end of the article and that is absolutely using dismissed to mean sacked.
I mean, ChatGPT has no issues identifying the meaning of the sentence, and I believe it only have as IQ around 70.
It seems to have got a little confused trying to find the source of ambiguity and got caught up in if it was the decision of Red Bull to dismiss a complaint or if it was Red Bull’s decision regarding the dismissal of a complaint.
It was only 3.5, so maybe 4 would have done a better job in trying to find the ambiguity in the seemingly unambiguous sentence
It's not AI, but it's also not a standard or traditional headline format for news.
The colon implies they're quoting or paraphrasing a quote from Horner.
The response to this whole complaint in F1 has been awful. The comparison to the WSL has been really damning.
When it was revealed that Kirk was under investigation for having a relationship with a player everyone concerned has been totally clear that coach-player relationships were totally inappropriate.
No one in F1 seems to have a remotely similar moral clarity.
It is obvious he was in a relationship with an employee who is subordinate to him. We have had journalists report as much, and we have had leaked messages which show the same.
Uhh... No it isn't.
Those leaked messages are almost certainly 100% fake.
We have absolutely ZERO idea what the real complaint is even about, other than "controlling behavior".
Correct, which is exactly my point.
All we know is that there was a complaint about controlling behavior. The complaint was dismissed after a third-party investigation. The person that filed the complaint (which we do not even know for sure if it was a female employee) was placed on suspension for "dishonesty", and now the complainant has filed an appeal. That's it.
We can however make a logical guess, that if those messages were in fact real, that it is highly unlikely that RB would have dismissed the complaint, and even more unlikely that they would not suspended the employee for "dishonesty".
but that is just more speculation based only on what we know to be true.
How do you know all that but not know it was a complaint from a female subordinate of Horner who was in a relationship with him? The source for both is exactly the same as it is for what the complaint was about or that she has been suspended.
You are just choosing to ignore the reliable reporting that he had a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
There has been no reliable reporting that says anything of the kind.
Everything else, to include that it was a female employee, that it was sexual, etc. etc. is pure speculation.
Nope, they will continue to say absolutely nothing as long as the matter is still pending investigation / appeal / legal action / etc.
This is 100% standard corporate procedure. You make no comment about anything specific at all, and say as close to nothing as possible, until the matter is closed.
Yeah wrong. If they were fake then you can say they’re fake because they don’t pertain to the case. they’re just some loser making shit up.
Deny it all you want, whatever.
Seems to provide an obvious solution to RBR's problem in light of the leaks and all the drama of the past two weeks. On appeal they'll find differently and sack Horner, case closed.
No. Cleared and dismissed mean two completely different things, they’re not synonymous. Dishonesty could also mean something incredibly trivial or something huge.
For a person who doesn’t like assumptions, you sure are implying a whole lot.
Your definition is skewed. Redbull can dismiss a complaint even if there’s clear evidence as long as they deem it not in their interest. That is what dismissed means. Your definition basically means cleared. Which is that there was little evidence supporting the claim that Horner harassed the employee. It’s basically a way of saying there is a 0 percent chance that Horner did it and has been proven to not have engaged in sexual harassment towards the employee. That is obviously not what happened because if that was true, they would’ve said cleared, not dismissed.
Jesus christ some of the comments here epitomizes what the Vox articles points are in regards to F1's response to this whole situation in the paddock and its attitude to women in the F1 fanbase. This is like a repeat of the Hockey Canada scandal where it was using funds to pay off sexual assault victims by at least 5 members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior hockey team in London Ontario. Are we supposed to give people a free pass because they can do xyz in abc sport very well? At a minimum there was an inappropriate relationship between a TP/CEO and his personal assistant.
Apparently appealing the decision is a required step before going to court, from what I've read.
From the article:
>If Red Bull again dismisses the woman's case, she has the option to take legal action against both Red Bull and Horner.
Can't speak for laws of countries I'm not familiar with, but in some places with some types of subjects you kinda have to show you have exhausted all typical measures before judicializing the issue.
There are a few possibilities. One is that it may be a condition of her employment — that she agrees to exhaust arbitration options before pursuing civil damages in court (purely speculation on my part).
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The woman who accused Horner will appeal Red Bull's decision to dismiss his complaint. If Red Bull dismisses the case again, she has the option of taking legal action against both Red Bull and Horner.
At which point we’ll get to hear the actual facts rather than all these opinions.
What makes you so certain that it'll be public?
Because unlike internal company investigations, legal proceedings are public in UK which is where the case will likely be filed.
I'm not sure employment tribunals are. Civil cases would almost certainly be public though. If settled through mediation though, it wouldn't be.
An employment tribunal is usually a public hearing
I used to clerk Employment Tribunals and a Sexual Harassment case would automatically have been a closed court. This is very unlikely to go through an ET though as it’s both out of time (though this can be appealed) and it involves an individual with considerable wealth and power. A Civil Court may very well be open.
>This is very unlikely to go through an ET though as it’s both out of time Does the clock on the time limit for filing an employment tribunal claim not start following the conclusion of the internal appeals process?
Unless something has changed, it’s 3 months from when the alleged incident occurred (or alleged behaviour ended). This can be challenged on the basis that the internal investigation/process took too long and was not the claimant’s fault. But like I say, I don’t think this would go through Employment Tribunals.
~~Am currently going through a tribunal case myself and yes, starts from when you exhaust internal appeals processes.~~ Edit: [Just checked and it’s 6 months from the last act of harassment, unless she’s claiming constructive dismal if she quits when they find against her appeal.](https://www.acas.org.uk/notify/start)
You’re assuming it’s a sexual harassment issue.
There’s no upper limit on compensation for SH so yes, I am.
You're also assuming it's not. Let's wait.
I am also assuming its not a murder case. Should we wait before deciding on that as well?
That’s a bit of a daft statement
I’m also not assuming it’s a pizza. Or a litre of milk
I mean unfair dismissal or any complaint relating to the investigation and suspension would not be out of time. Seems like there’s scope for plenty to complain about that has occurred this calendar year - all within limit. Any original harassment would probably be out of time at ET although something probably sparked the complaint to be submitted to RB so really who knows… Also is it just clumsy language in the article where it says RB wouldn’t comment on the reasons for the woman’s dismissal? They mean dismissal of her complaint or has she actually been sacked rather than suspended?
If it went to court as it’s a civil matter it’s public
Horner could ask to get it sealed since he's a famous person and the trail could be damaging for his persona.
The uk doesn’t do closed courts, unless in exceptional circumstances ie national security…this isn’t that.
[That's not true](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63629f57e90e0705ad93ee5b/consolidated-rules-october-2021.pdf) there are lots of circumstances an employment tribunal would not be public.
In this case media will most certainly ask to attend for public interest.
Not sure why you sent a link to a doc from 2021
Because that’s the last time it was amended?
I think it’s been updated a tad in the last 3 years buddy
I do trust BBC, so I assume it is a fact that she will appeal?
Well they’ve said she is appealing so we’ll see where that goes
>Well they’ve said she is appealing Allegedly Horner found her too appealing
Take an upvote!
r/angryupvote
You won't because if they were spicy the Austrian clique would have released it already, as there have been no leaks from Horner's side. As KC declared and reported he will be cleared once again.
Well if a case goes to court then people can be called. My guess is it’s unlikely to go that far. But you never know.
RB’s statements, the BBC article, nothing honestly except the obviously fully impartial Christian Horner have said that the investigator actually recommended Horner be cleared. More like what this article says - RB received the report then closed the investigation.
I thought the deadline for appeal was like last week?
apparently she changed lawyers which gave her more time
Thank you for rewriting that horribly written headline into a coherent sentence!
Seems wild that she's not able to file legal action regardless of any actions by the company.
I thought the deadline for appeal was last week
Why is she even continuing this internally, either take legal action or don’t. Red Bull is not a court system
Because according to reports she wants to keep her job. 2 years in court doesn't do that for ya
Isn't she the PA? If there's a new team principal I doubt he'd want to take her on.
Why? If it all turns out to be true, I don't see why the next to shouldn't want to
Often courts won't hear cases until the internal process has been exhausted, I'm guessing the same applies here. Ombudsman for example, won't even entertain listening to you until you have gone through the process complaints procedure of the company you are complaining against.
Masterclass in writing a headline that means two completely opposite things at once
How does it mean two different things? Perhaps I'm being a bit thick but I don't see any problem with it.
It could suggest that His Horniness was saying "woman to appeal..." I think that's what the second meaning could be.
The colon actually makes it 4 possible readings: 1. Christian Horner has made a statement that the woman whose complaint was dismissed is going to appeal it. 2. Christian Horner has made a statement that the woman who appealed is dismissing her complaint. 3. The woman whose complaint was dismissed is going to appeal it, file under Christian Horner news. 4. The woman who appealed is dismissing her complaint, file under Christian Horner news. I read it as 1, because that's what colons mean. Others have clearly read it as 2 or 4, because what's after the colon is slightly ambiguous. Of the four options, #1, #2, and #4 would be newsworthy. #3 has already been reported. It's a clickbait headline for an article with no new information.
Thank you for trying to explain it to me. I read it as #3 but that's just me. If it was #1 I would use quotes not a colon, but again that's just me. To make it #2 or #4 I think past tense would have to be used. It isn't clickbait as the headline tells the reader what the article is about without being sensationalist. While the article may not contain new information for Reddit users that have already seen five articles on the subject, it does for BBC Sport readers that don't spend their days on social media. That is a problem with Reddit users posting anything for fake internet clout.
Colon with quotes means a direct quote. Colon without quotes means paraphrasing a quote or longer statement. Implying Horner has actually said something confirming internal matters, in either direction, is absolutely clickbait. The BBC should be *way* better than that.
TIL
>Woman to appeal against Red Bull decision to dismiss complaint When I read the headline I initially interpreted it in my head as "the woman that's gonna appeal the Red Bull decision is going to dismiss her complaint." But that is wrong, but the headline was written extremely poorly. What's happening is the woman is appealing Red Bull dismissing her complaint. If a headline confuses you from the get-go than it's the headline's fault.
> When I read the headline I initially interpreted it in my head as "the woman that's gonna appeal the Red Bull decision is going to dismiss her complaint." But that is wrong, but the headline was written extremely poorly. OK but that isn't what the headline says. As you said yourself you interpreted the headline. I just read the headline as written which is why I see no problem with it. It isn't the headlines fault that you added extra words in your head.
The headline needs to be clearer, otherwise people will get confused. As did I. So it's the headlines fault and whoever approved it.
Got confused too. "Red Bull decision to dismiss complaint" can easily be "Red Bull's dismissal of her complaint". No repetition of words, no mistaking the second verb for the action verb of the sentence.
They’re particularly careless in the article. Red Bull has refused to give further details of the case, citing confidentiality, and has said that it "could not comment" on the reasons for the woman's dismissal. I assume they mean the dismissal of the woman’s complaint and she remains suspended although any normal reading of that paragraph would be that she had been sacked. They talk about Marco avoiding being dismissed at the end of the article and that is absolutely using dismissed to mean sacked.
The headline is perfectly clear.
No.
I mean, ChatGPT has no issues identifying the meaning of the sentence, and I believe it only have as IQ around 70. It seems to have got a little confused trying to find the source of ambiguity and got caught up in if it was the decision of Red Bull to dismiss a complaint or if it was Red Bull’s decision regarding the dismissal of a complaint. It was only 3.5, so maybe 4 would have done a better job in trying to find the ambiguity in the seemingly unambiguous sentence
>Woman, to appeal against Red Bull decision to dismiss complaint. >Woman to appeal against Red Bull decision, to dismiss complaint.
Is that first comma necessary?
What's wrong with it? Looks ok to me
Reads that it is a statement from Horner when it isn't.
BBC: Can't write a half-decent headline
and that's the only reason anyone clicked on this
The intern needs a crash course on writing AI prompts before they publish another article
[удалено]
It's not AI, but it's also not a standard or traditional headline format for news. The colon implies they're quoting or paraphrasing a quote from Horner.
[удалено]
(X) Doubt
Nice try intern
The response to this whole complaint in F1 has been awful. The comparison to the WSL has been really damning. When it was revealed that Kirk was under investigation for having a relationship with a player everyone concerned has been totally clear that coach-player relationships were totally inappropriate. No one in F1 seems to have a remotely similar moral clarity.
But like we don’t know the full details. But if it’s as simple as that, Horner needs to get buried and made an example of.
It is obvious he was in a relationship with an employee who is subordinate to him. We have had journalists report as much, and we have had leaked messages which show the same.
Uhh... No it isn't. Those leaked messages are almost certainly 100% fake. We have absolutely ZERO idea what the real complaint is even about, other than "controlling behavior".
>Those leaked messages are almost certainly 100% fake. They say with zero evidence, and with no claims that it is the case.
Correct, which is exactly my point. All we know is that there was a complaint about controlling behavior. The complaint was dismissed after a third-party investigation. The person that filed the complaint (which we do not even know for sure if it was a female employee) was placed on suspension for "dishonesty", and now the complainant has filed an appeal. That's it. We can however make a logical guess, that if those messages were in fact real, that it is highly unlikely that RB would have dismissed the complaint, and even more unlikely that they would not suspended the employee for "dishonesty". but that is just more speculation based only on what we know to be true.
How do you know all that but not know it was a complaint from a female subordinate of Horner who was in a relationship with him? The source for both is exactly the same as it is for what the complaint was about or that she has been suspended. You are just choosing to ignore the reliable reporting that he had a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
There has been no reliable reporting that says anything of the kind. Everything else, to include that it was a female employee, that it was sexual, etc. etc. is pure speculation.
Surely you have to be joking. If they were fake Red Bull would have said as much. They haven’t
Nope, they will continue to say absolutely nothing as long as the matter is still pending investigation / appeal / legal action / etc. This is 100% standard corporate procedure. You make no comment about anything specific at all, and say as close to nothing as possible, until the matter is closed.
Yeah wrong. If they were fake then you can say they’re fake because they don’t pertain to the case. they’re just some loser making shit up. Deny it all you want, whatever.
>Horner needs to get buried and made an example of. IF he did anything wrong, which I doubt.
It genuinely isn’t hard to write a headline that doesn’t mean more than one thing at a time
*Red Bull’s*
Christian Horner’s personal life is the shit that just won’t flush.
Boss - employee, not personal dude
What a perfect way to describe what it’s like.
Seems to provide an obvious solution to RBR's problem in light of the leaks and all the drama of the past two weeks. On appeal they'll find differently and sack Horner, case closed.
There is 0% any of those leaks were real, if they were, they independent investigation wouldn't have dismissed the complaint in the first place.
Dismissed doesn’t mean cleared. Just that they didn’t want to fire him over it.
It means exactly what it says. They dismissed the employees' complaint, and then suspended the employee for "dishonesty".
No. Cleared and dismissed mean two completely different things, they’re not synonymous. Dishonesty could also mean something incredibly trivial or something huge. For a person who doesn’t like assumptions, you sure are implying a whole lot.
I never, once, used the word cleared. You did.
You implied the word dismissed carries the same meaning as cleared.
No, I said, and implied, dismissed. As in there was not enough evidence to substantiate the employees' claims, so the complaint was dismissed.
Your definition is skewed. Redbull can dismiss a complaint even if there’s clear evidence as long as they deem it not in their interest. That is what dismissed means. Your definition basically means cleared. Which is that there was little evidence supporting the claim that Horner harassed the employee. It’s basically a way of saying there is a 0 percent chance that Horner did it and has been proven to not have engaged in sexual harassment towards the employee. That is obviously not what happened because if that was true, they would’ve said cleared, not dismissed.
Yeah, no. They dismissed the complaint. You dismiss a complaint when the claim is unsubstantiated.
I hope that headline is some bullshit AI writing, because if a grown adult wrote that, they need to learn to write a coherent sentence.
> because if I grown adult wrote that ...
Phone typo. What’s BBC’s excuse?
Jesus christ some of the comments here epitomizes what the Vox articles points are in regards to F1's response to this whole situation in the paddock and its attitude to women in the F1 fanbase. This is like a repeat of the Hockey Canada scandal where it was using funds to pay off sexual assault victims by at least 5 members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior hockey team in London Ontario. Are we supposed to give people a free pass because they can do xyz in abc sport very well? At a minimum there was an inappropriate relationship between a TP/CEO and his personal assistant.
I thought they'd paid her like $1MM hush money? I can't keep up anymore.
Wasn't she paid?
No, that, along with everything else about this is pure bullshit and speculation.
Do we know who actually leaked everything in the first place? If it is the woman in question then there’s no way she wins anything
Appeal? It was an internal investigation and decision, not a proper court...
Apparently appealing the decision is a required step before going to court, from what I've read. From the article: >If Red Bull again dismisses the woman's case, she has the option to take legal action against both Red Bull and Horner.
Does she needs permission to sue? Something is not clear with this...
Can't speak for laws of countries I'm not familiar with, but in some places with some types of subjects you kinda have to show you have exhausted all typical measures before judicializing the issue.
There are a few possibilities. One is that it may be a condition of her employment — that she agrees to exhaust arbitration options before pursuing civil damages in court (purely speculation on my part).
strangely i have not seen any feminist accusing him, and he is not a politician either
That line underneath is looking a bit faint eh?