Chief Stipe

Tauherenikau have had the date for at least the last 25 years haven't they?

Yes and I've hidden a fair number of such posts on BOAY. But not all are losing punter. There are some individuals that are active participants in the industry that constantly make degrading and abusive comments while spreading a false narrative that has no relationship to fact.

In your opinion. In my opinion it is a step towards protecting participants from wild and abusive online remarks by people who have a direct connection to the industry. NZTR have made many attempts to listen, engage and respond to stakeholders but are faced with irrational and abusive behaviour. BECAUSE many in the industry don't want to face up to the hard facts. It doesn't undermine their efforts it protects ALL. I've had administration employees and people working at the coalface contact me directly in tears about the actions of certain individuals on the two forums I've managed. I've readily hid those comments from public view when asked. Hopefully these new rules put a line in the sand that clearly states if you cross this line there are consequences. NZTR didn't have to test that precedent. The case should never have been taken. It turned into a farce about 90 horses and an individual "feeling insulted". @muzenza365 didn't cross the line and subsequently NO precedent was set in that respect. The precendent was that he was entitled to express an opinion. The original opinion he expressed was regarding the state of the Awapuni track and the actions of the Stipes with regard to it. The rest was a side show driven largely by Leo Molloy. The latter did cross the line hence his losing the defamation case taken against him. That was a costly exercise for all involved and hopefully these new rules give those that can't afford to take legal action some protection. As for your contribution to Morty's case regarding the Bill of Rights Act - that was purely an academic sideshow. No precedent was set in that regard. If someone wants to test the new rule if enforced then good luck to them. I'm sure you'll pull all your old notes out.

That was never tested in a higher court and you are being selective in your quotation. In my opinion McKechnie was wrong. Regardless the question is do the new rules change things?

It's an Incorporated Society and by law is entitled to manage its own rules. Try again. Do you think Judge Ema Aitken will use BORA as a defence?

BORA doesn't apply to NZTR as it is an Incorporated Society i.e. self governing.

Ok I'll put the moot another way. What part of the NZTR revised 801 Rule conflicts with Rule 41 (1)?

Point to specifically in BORA that justifies YOUR position.

That's a very moot point regarding your entitlement under the BORA and as I said above I'm sure that Freedom of Expression covers calling anyone a "stupid prick" but that is a different Act and doesn't apply to you as an individual. If you persist in calling @hesi a stupid prick online he has every right to ask you to desist and if you fail to do so can use the HDCA to force you to desist.

Which laws? Given your rudimentary understanding of BORA and HRA I'd be interested to know specifically what laws you refer to.

I don't believe NZTR would get hammered. Afterall didn't he throw in his license to avoid getting "hammered"?

I'm not sure I agree with that. The winner of that race by virtue of winning it got entry into the KM and nearly pulled off the win in KM 2yr old. Although only four in the field this year there were 7 the previous year. 2yr olds have to start somewhere. I know a Grp 1 winning filly and mulltiple Group winner that started its career in a 3 horse 2yr old race at the course. Incentives such as what? Tauherenikau is favoured with a number of meetings during the holiday period. Isn't that incentive enough?

Well many people get confused between the two. The BORA (Bill of Rights Act) doesn't confer as many rights as people think. It is directed at Goverment and its Agencies and binds them to certain principles. That said neither Act is paramount and laws can be passed that are inconsistent.

Aren't you confusing the Human Rights Act with the Bill of Rights Act? One primarily focuses on discrimination and the other freedom of expression.

Anyone can make a claim about anything but then they need to provide evidence to support their claim. How does the Harmful Digital Communications Act work?