Chief Stipe

Rule Number(s): 869(2)Following the running of Race 9 an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault, against Licensed Junior Driver, Miss L McKay, alleging that as the Driver of CAESAR’S QUEST in the race, “You used your whip free of the rein early in the run home”. Miss McKay had signed the Information admitting . (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(4)(6)(b)(c)Following the running of Race 7 an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward Mr S Renault alleging a breach of Rule 869 (4)(6)(b)(c) by Junior Driver Mr M Hurrell. The Information stated that “M Hurrell pushed out ARIZONAWILDCAT to race wider on the track racing around the first bend.” Mr Hurrell . (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 847(1)Following the running of Race 9 an Information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Mr S Renault, against Licensed Junior Driver, Miss L McKay, alleging that “Driver L McKay failed to wear her safety vest in the preliminary”. Miss McKay had signed the Information admitting the breach and stated she was . (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

The same is happening here. Meanwhile, England’s National Health Service has said 350,000 patients in England had been waiting for more than six weeks for a key diagnostic test in December 2020. They added a total of 345,664 patients were waiting for one of 15 standard tests, including an MRI scan, non-obstetric ultrasound or gastroscopy. In December 2019, the equivalent figure was 41,906.

BTW Gammalite do you realise and understand that vaccination doesn't give a path out of this nonsense. Vaccines are not 100% effective. Vaccines do not create a force shield around you. You will still get infected unless of course you keep everything locked down. Vaccines work by priming the immunity system to fight the infection. They can't prevent infection but only minimise the impact of the virus. Did you know that a signifiant number of those that die from the flu have been vaccinated?

Stop being so bloody condescending. You are obviously in a position of privilege and lockdowns have no effect on you. You have no idea how many lives were saved. Nor do you have any idea how long they have been "saved" for. The fact is that some mortality has been deferred at considerable expense and that expense WILL cost lives. So you contradict yourself as obviously for you not all lives do matter only that small percentage of the population that may be susceptible to respiratory viruses. You'd quite gladly see a year or more of my daughter's school year and social development stuffed to supposedly save the lives. So you support temporarily locking down countries every year? Again you are in a privileged position and it doesn't affect you. At what level of a perceived danger do you lock down? Obviously not the flu level of danger because we haven't needed to do that for decades. Hell we didn't lock down during the Spanish Flu because we had to keep fighting a war and people needed to keep working. The sad irony about this approach is we are actually making our populations more vulnerable to future infections because we are lowering natural immunity and creating a viral naive population. Don't be surprised if the next flu season has two or three times or more than average mortality. If this approach continues and more and more collateral damage occurs and civil liberties are further curtailed you will see civil disobedience emerge. It was starting before the "new dangerous variants" narrative was dreamed up and it won't be long before you will see more push back.

Do some research on one of the others as well. As for second chance. Some crimes yes others no.

It would be a step up from "wait until after the court hearing and name suppression being lifted" without any reference to what the charge is. As far as I can recall there is only one outstanding case from INCA in the court process at the moment. Quite frankly INCA hasn't hit any home runs yet other than peripheral charges.

I have no idea about either. However it is nearly three years now and there was no name suppression on that charge.

But there is a fundamental flaw in this supposition. What reason would force BOTH Purdon and Rasmussen to step down from training? A plea deal? That would be unlikely. They BOTH need time to prepare and focus on their defence? It can't be because of some conviction because they haven't been convicted of anything. Other than Natalie's drug charge which was a minor misdemeanour. Now no one is willing to post any theoretical scenario other than innuendo.

FFS Galah spit it out. Otherwise you are no better than any rumour mongerer!

How? Could be anyone. Easy to post innuendo. He doesn't even say what case he is referring to.

LOL hardly anyone kisses my arse round here. The fact is you didn't like her liking someone's post and bit.

Ease up. Since when does someone liking a post necessitate abuse?

Well that narrows it down.....not!

They went for a cheap option first, then a cheap fix option, and then another cheap fix....... Would have been better to do it properly in the first place.

There is no evidence to say they "were far too late." There is ample research based on evidence that lockdowns are not effective. NZ has gone for an isolation "Fortress New Zealand" (that term comes from Baker, Wilson, et al.) approach. At great cost. I haven't seen the plan yet for getting out this situation. Sooner or later NZ will have to experience the pain. Perhaps the Government should be having the conversation with the populous about the truth? That the only way we can avoid the pain is to stay isolated for many many years to come.

Correct because I'm not afraid of Covid-19. Looking at the science I'm better off than catching the flu. Nana is in a rest home and is in the twilight of her life. I'm not calling her a "selfish Bitch" as that would be rude, unfair and I don't know her. You are the one that is selfish. You want to lock down non-vulnerable people and ruin businesses to protect yourself NOT Nana. All because of a strategy driven by ideology that is wrong. There isn't 100% chance that she would die from Covid-19 if she was unlucky enough to catch it. Not everyone her age that catches it dies. Even if you are over age 90 the chances are 1 in 10. Even if she was vaccinated that may not stop her from getting Covid-19. No vaccine is 100% effective. It may improve the 90 year olds chances to 1 in 20.

Except my opinion has a lot more data supporting it than she does hers.

Actually pulling wings off Flies might be more entertaining than this. The "article" was an opinion piece. The bias is self evident. She targeted Sweden and Sweden only. She didn't do any comparison with any other country. The best evidence that you could provide to counter my contention that Sweden has done very well was to post an opinion piece.

Quite frankly there are any number of countries I'd rather be at the moment. I have no fear of getting Covid-19. I'm not concerned about my living conditions today I'm worried about the impacts further down the track. I've also seen the impact these decisions have had on our young and on self-employed business people. People who are not going to die from Covid-19. Where is the egalitarian approach from you with regard to that? Yeah na. "I'm alright and let's share the kindness".....

FFS you don't get it do you!!!!! Up to today 12,500 people have died with Covid-19 in Sweden. That's a fact. Dr Claeson say's - "that's a failure". I say "it isn't a failure". Those are opinion's referencing the same facts. However I justify my opinion by referring to more than one factor and outcome and especially when you compare it to countries that took more draconian actions. Now if Dr Claeson wasn't biased and using Sweden as the benchmark she would say "25 other countries FAILED too." But she hasn't has she? She has singled out Sweden's approach as a failure. Why?

Really? You are not very good at this are you? Cindy and Grant went AGAINST their own Dept of Health advisors AND WHO when they implemented their strategy. What's more it was only those TWO that decided - not any other elected Labour party member of parliament NOR even Parliament as a whole. They used executive powers to do it.

IT IS NOT SCIENCE! It is an OPINION piece! No I'm not buying into any Gates conspiracy theory BUT Claeson is writing an OPINION piece and obviously has bias! IT IS NOT SCIENCE!

NO no no! You are out of your depth because you have made an assumption about WHO's recommended response and Global strategy that is wrong. THEY DID NOT SAY OR RECOMMEND WHAT CINDY DID! Do you understand? I don't need qualifications or expertise to read and remember what WHO actually said.