Thomass Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 She tweeted then deleted...after taking wise counsel... The fact Innes got 5 weeks and Cooksly 16 days.... She probably forgot it'll be virtually the same once both jockeys mitigating circumstances are taken into account though... But the damage was done... A license holder like her can't in any way criticise the Feds She'll be charged for sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 5 hours ago, Thomass said: A license holder like her can't in any way criticise the Feds Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 20, 2019 Author Share Posted January 20, 2019 She questioned the impartiality of the Feds... Australia had a few problems with Jockeys posting on social media and being critical of the Feds... Its simply not allowed...you know it And that's why she deleted it...she now knows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 (edited) I don't know what she said but did you not read the RIU v Morton decision re licence holders right to make critical comment in social media or elsewhere? Edited January 20, 2019 by curious 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, curious said: I don't know what she said but did you not read the RIU v Morton decision re licence holders right to make critical comment in social media or elsewhere? You are correct Curious but that won't stop her from getting grief from the RIU. They have short memories. Unfortunately for some the price of free speech is too high. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 As I said, I don't know what she said. However, it is clear from that decision that she is free to criticise provided that criticism does not involve insults, abuse, obscenities nor assert misconduct or corrupt practice. It is a fundamental human right as you say Chief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 An organisation that isn't prepared to be censured/critiqued appropriately is clearly one that knows they have issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 Precisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 20, 2019 Author Share Posted January 20, 2019 1 hour ago, curious said: I don't know what she said but did you not read the RIU v Morton decision re licence holders right to make critical comment in social media or elsewhere? There's a distinct difference between a Suit in an office.. ..and the people upholding INTEGRITY imagine every Dicktom posting tweets on how incompetent the JCA/RIU are? She realised she can't do that..and deleted..but not before the damage was done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Thomass said: There's a distinct difference between a Suit in an office.. ..and the people upholding INTEGRITY imagine every Dicktom posting tweets on how incompetent the JCA/RIU are? She realised she can't do that..and deleted..but not before the damage was done... You obviously didn't read the decision. No difference at all I'm afraid. That's the rules and the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopia Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 Yes thats correct Curious. Tommo should read a bit of history, plenty of evidence of dictators, tyrants, etc stifling criticism of their regimes...burning books, painting symbols on windows, beating up non believers...if the RIU can't cop a bit of criticism then maybe they should harden up...or try harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 20, 2019 Author Share Posted January 20, 2019 The problem with having a quasi High Court like the JCA is they do 'pretendy' Cloth Heads...with a Black cloth... We need to get rid of that... Imagine Leaf and Dan...hard at it over a social media platform Giving it to Oatham...doesn't bare thinking about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I recall all of us having this debate at the time of Morty's case. The JCA may well be like a semi-quasi High Court however that is to the racing industry's advantage. It is a less expensive option than the High Court and provides an independent adjudicator i.e. it allows a fairer system then allowing the RIU to be the Police, Judge and Jury. The RIU spent a large amount of money challenging the right of licensees to comment publically and challenge their decisions. They failed and they know they would fail in the High Court as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 20, 2019 Share Posted January 20, 2019 I might add that the Greyhounds definitely and possibly both Harness and Thoroughbreds Rules are not aligned to the JCA decision regarding stakeholder Social Media participation. Which is great because I know there are licensees who comment on BOAY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 On 21/01/2019 at 7:33 AM, curious said: You obviously didn't read the decision. No difference at all I'm afraid. That's the rules and the law. What about if she gets the FACTS wrong in comparing the 2 cases? Casting aspersions on the competence of the Feds feeds contempt... And the two cases are DISTINCTLY different... Innes already had an appalling record...Cooksly didnt One aggravating the other mitigating So called free speech comes with responsibilities...and Danielle shot her mouth off without knowing the facts She should get charged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 If she got the facts wrong in expressing her opinion then she only looks a fool nothing more. A lesson there perhaps. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: If she got the facts wrong in expressing her opinion then she only looks a fool nothing more. A lesson there perhaps. Yep, they should be able to express opinion and the only rules around that should be in regards things like language. I have criticised management in past roles. If I couldn't, I would have left. You don't have to be rude, but there is nothing wrong with being direct, and it should be encouraged. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, mardigras said: Yep, they should be able to express opinion and the only rules around that should be in regards things like language. I have criticised management in past roles. If I couldn't, I would have left. You don't have to be rude, but there is nothing wrong with being direct, and it should be encouraged. I agree. With reference to your last sentence if that was the case then perhaps the debacle in Race 1 at Hokitika may not have happened. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weasel Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Thomass said: So called free speech comes with responsibilities... I find it highly ironic that Thomass believes this to be true, but does not apply it to his own behaviour when posting on this site. Insults, personal abuse, offensive language and images posted ...causing needless negativity and irritation to many members. Practice what you preach (above), Thomass, and we'll all be grateful for your contribution to BOAY,. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 So no problem with a Jockey spreading continual lies about a Stipe's actions... ..even though totally wrong? Jeez...some impressionable delicate flowers may start believing FAKE NEWS then what have you got? Just get their partner to post something... Licence holders should be charged with spreading falsehoods Just like Australia...very stern rules @social media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 People who don't write the truth or the facts or whose opinion can be shown to be untrue/falsely damaging will become known as writers of fairytales which will result in them having zero credibility. It's a good system. It's no different me saying something negative about the racing industry or a jockey doing so. Given the jockey wants to continue getting rides, it's already in their best interest to not be seen as a writer of fairytales/bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, Weasel said: I find it highly ironic that Thomass believes this to be true, but does not apply it to his own behaviour when posting on this site. Insults, personal abuse, offensive language and images posted ...causing needless negativity and irritation to many members. Practice what you preach (above), Thomass, and we'll all be grateful for your contribution to BOAY,. Change the threads thrust why don't you mischievious questioning or corrupting threads? Fyi...I only ever smack talked when asked If someone tells me I've got a mental illness and I should top myself... whats one to do...ignore it? That Elephant appears lost on most of you here... Of course Sports Illustrated images purchased at the local Dairy are far far worse get a grip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 1 minute ago, mardigras said: People who don't write the truth or the facts or whose opinion can be shown to be untrue/falsely damaging will become known as writers of fairytales which will result in them having zero credibility. It's a good system. It's no different me saying something negative about the racing industry or a jockey doing so. Given the jockey wants to continue getting rides, it's already in their best interest to not be seen as a writer of fairytales/bullshit. Try telling that to the Executives in a Company one works for... That they've got it wrong...and they're a bunch of incompetents Last warning or instant dismissal...even these days This is no different Wed be the only Racing Jurisdiction in the World who allows this on social media from license holders... Even that teller of truth THE INFORMANT re-tweeted it...just to spread the lie even further... If it wasn't for me finding out the FACTS you'd all be wallowing in Johnson's b/s as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Thomass said: Try telling that to the Executives in a Company one works for... That they've got it wrong...and they're a bunch of incompetents Last warning or instant dismissal...even these days Crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, mardigras said: Crap. This is from EMPLOYMENT NZ Try doing some FACT searching for a change.. Issues identified via social media Activity on social networking sites (particularly outside of work hours) may be a cause for disciplinary action (including dismissal if it is serious or repeated). So that employees understand expectations, employers should have social media policies clearly setting out their expectations of behaviour both in and out of the workplace, covering for example: posts that are critical of the employer, manager or colleagues activity via social media that otherwise affects relationships in the workplace (for example, bullying or threatening other employees) activity on social media sites that is inconsistent with the values of the company posts which divulge commercially sensitive information posts which show that the employee is not doing what they said they were doing (eg the employee said they were sick and they are seen doing a recreational activity). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.