I don’t really get people still being convinced he’s guilty and saying this is being brushed under the rug. Has it even been confirmed what he was accused of?
People read some unconfirmed gossip articles and think they know the guy and all the facts of the situation. Is there any evidence the independent investigation was a sham?
There’s zero evidence that RB’s investigation wasn’t a proper one, no. Certainly not publicly at the very least.
But then again, RB’s owners have done some… legally questionable things.
The Thai owner’s son hit a police motorbike and dragged him over 100 metres along the road, while he was drink driving. He then fled the scene of the crime.
The family initially implied a driver hired by the family was driving, before it being discovered it was the owner’s son/heir to RB.
The initial police investigation had to be disbanded because it was found they were attempting to cover up the crime.
The RB owner’s son then fled the country, and the family lawyers kept telling the courts he was too poorly or busy with work to attend court.
Finally, after 5 years and lots of legal back and forth, the police put out an arrest warrant.
He still hasn’t received any punishment for his crimes.
Obviously these are two very unrelated matters, and Horner should still be presumed innocent unless there’s evidence to the contrary. My point is only that I don’t find it implausible that the RB owners would brush bad shit under the rug or do something dishonest/legally questionable. They have form.
I was unaware of that RB family incident, it’s definitely a shady and unfortunate situation. Although, as you pointed out it’s not the same circumstances in this case. It’s certainly reasonable to question RBs reaction though.
I just don’t understand why people are so adamantly attached to their judgment of guilt. Essentially no info about this entire situation has been shared to form an informed opinion around.
People here really seem to have wanted Horner to be cannoned for this.
I don’t really get people still being convinced he’s guilty and saying this is being brushed under the rug. Has it even been confirmed what he was accused of?
People read some unconfirmed gossip articles and think they know the guy and all the facts of the situation. Is there any evidence the independent investigation was a sham?
There’s zero evidence that RB’s investigation wasn’t a proper one, no. Certainly not publicly at the very least.
But then again, RB’s owners have done some… legally questionable things.
The Thai owner’s son hit a police motorbike and dragged him over 100 metres along the road, while he was drink driving. He then fled the scene of the crime.
The family initially implied a driver hired by the family was driving, before it being discovered it was the owner’s son/heir to RB.
The initial police investigation had to be disbanded because it was found they were attempting to cover up the crime.
The RB owner’s son then fled the country, and the family lawyers kept telling the courts he was too poorly or busy with work to attend court.
Finally, after 5 years and lots of legal back and forth, the police put out an arrest warrant.
He still hasn’t received any punishment for his crimes.
Obviously these are two very unrelated matters, and Horner should still be presumed innocent unless there’s evidence to the contrary. My point is only that I don’t find it implausible that the RB owners would brush bad shit under the rug or do something dishonest/legally questionable. They have form.
I was unaware of that RB family incident, it’s definitely a shady and unfortunate situation. Although, as you pointed out it’s not the same circumstances in this case. It’s certainly reasonable to question RBs reaction though.
I just don’t understand why people are so adamantly attached to their judgment of guilt. Essentially no info about this entire situation has been shared to form an informed opinion around.
Well… yeah? If he’s guilty of course most would want him sacked for it
Sounds like you have some important information about the case. Maybe you should share with the proper authorities.
Added emphasis because clearly you missed that very important word.
If he’s guilty. If. I never claimed to have any insider knowledge at all, that’s just a strawman you made up to get angry at.
Am I to assume if he’s guilty you wouldn’t want him sacked? That’s kinda fucked up.
Can you confirm, do you know what ‘if’ means? Yes, no?
E: that’s a no then.
And being against people being sacked in the event of them being found guilty of sexually harassing employees? Yikes.