Chief Stipe

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?

Yes and you fail to get the point. Morty didn't cross the line. The Bill of Rights doesn't allow you to abuse, insult and degrade people does it?

Noted. Case closed.

You're an idiot. The rule is about the withholding of water. So if a horse is dehydrated after being given a preventative medicine then it would be an offence to not give it water. Of course you could argue that if you were truly interested in the welfare of a horse you would allow Furosemide because it is effective in preventing EIPH (Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage. But no you don't raise that but focus on how it isn't fair to punters - oh the hypocrisy!

That is the wide ranging clause and the most subjective. The rest of the rule changes wouldn't affect most people who comment online as but for a hardcore of serial abusers they behave politely and with common decency.

From NZTR Rules Update Bulletin: Social Media platforms can be used to abuse participants within the racing industry. NZTR has reviewed the current Rules and found that they could be improved to more effectively address this type of harmful behaviour. As a result, NZTR is proposing an update to Rule 801(1)(s)(ii) to ensure that all forms of abuse on social media are clearly covered. These changes are intended to better protect everyone involved in the industry from online abuse.https://bitofayarn.com NZTR proposes that Rule 801 be amended as follows: 801 (1) A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these Rules who:https://bitofayarn.com (s) either by themselves or in conjunction with any other person: does or permits or suffers to be done any act which an Adjudicative Committee deems fraudulent, corrupt or detrimental to the interests of racing; orhttps://bitofayarn.com at any time writes or causes to be written (including in any form of electronic or digital communication), publishes or causes to be published, or posts or causes to be posted on any website, medium, forum, platform or any social media or social networking service, or utters or causes to be uttered, any insulting or abusive words with reference to a Tribunal, NZTR, committee of a Club or a member or Official of any such body or a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator, or Registered Medical Practitioner;https://bitofayarn.com without limiting sub-Rule (1)(s)(ii) of this Rule, posts or causes to be posted on any website, medium, forum, platform, or any social media or networking service, that is available to the public, or any section of the public, any comment, image, video, digital or electronic communication, that may insult, humiliate or cause serious emotional distress to any entity or person referred to in that sub-Rule or to any Licenceholder or other industry participant, or that is otherwise harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry;

"didn't look appropriately located" doesn't sound as if you are convinced. Are you and @Thomass having your Sunday review sessions while you count your punting losses from the day before? Who holds the remote? Or do you have one of those mouse type arrangements with the ball like a third umpire?

WTF does that picture prove? The grass is greener than it looked on TV?

Spaz means incompetent or uncoodinated person. @Bill could always claim his was correct in his assertion.

Correct but it may generate revenue but run at a loss or a proft. Not to be confused with a Cost Accountant though or Cost Accounting. The average Cost Accountant will say get rid of the Training Centre because it doesn't make a profit. The Management Accountant will say don't get rid of the Training Centre because it contributes to other activities which helps the overall profitability of the business.

Comparatively it appears to be. But enlighten us with your views on the changes to the NZTR policy? Or are you just a one trick bloke?

Subsided? I assume you mean subsidised. What do you mean by "subsidised" in this instance. Or are you taking the cost accountant approach and have determined that a Training Centre is a cost centre, the Race Day is a cost centre etc etc?

Come one @Murray Fish ! It is the same old Stuff leftie hit piece rolled out for election year. The usual suspects quoted. The two "economists" employed not for their skills but for their wokeness! Euqab is always banging on about these things. Euqab used to work for the Goldman Sachs and then the ANZ in NZ. The latter just posted a record $2.53b profit in NZ alone!! He now works for Simplicity - Here to make our members wealthier. Nonprofit, low fees and ethically invested. By Kiwis, for Kiwis. Which means they don't invest in oil and gas but their funds are heavily invested in AI (which needs lots of oil and gas!). The figures used in the article are the classic manipulation of data to convey a doom and gloom picture. Which is why NZTR shouldn't do surveys!!