Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Coming ×
Bit Of A Yarn

Danielle Johnson's troublesome tweet


Thomass

Recommended Posts

Thanks. Did you not read the word serious? Clearly not. So a post that is not rude, will not result in instant dismissal such as you claimed. 

If it did, the person would have a field day in employment court. We're talking opinion, only relating to the first point in the example.

So I repeat, what you wrote was crap.

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Oh ffs

I also said "warning..if critical of the employer"

Repeated...down the road 

Yes, but you tried to assert someone could face instant dismissal under such situations of a similar nature to this thread. Which is crap.

But you want to sensationalise things that are trivial at best.

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎21‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 10:16 AM, Chief Stipe said:

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.

GRNZ has a policy about social media for their LP's.

https://www.grnz.co.nz/Files/Documents/Greyhound Racing Assn Social Media Policy Licensed Persons.pdf

 

Excerpts~

 

When using social media you should be: 
 
1. responsive to your audience; 
 
2. respectful to the individuals and communities with which you interact; 
 
3. careful about the content if it is likely to be offensive or unacceptable
, regardless of its truthfulness or accuracy.

 

 

Disparaging or Unprofessional Statements and Personal Opinions 
 
When engaging in social media activities you must never: 
 
 disparage anybody connected with the Association, including our members, trainers, owners, stakeholders or our directors and staff (past or present);  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So these are the rules in Australia...

Johnson was not FACTUALLY ACCURATE...

At least she took wise counsel in deleting the thread...but the damage was done with The Informant believing her and re tweeting

Thats why License Holders should be charged when breaching the Rules

...as in this instance

When using social media for private use, you are required to:

  • identify yourself as a licensed person if you refer to Racing Victoria, its people, its officials, other licensed persons or competitors and/or other racing-related individuals or organisations;
  • ensure you do not knowingly use the identity of another licensed person or an employee of a racing-related individual (e.g. jockeys, strappers or trainers, including variations of a name);
  • be mindful during your social media engagements of the importance of not damaging, or potentially damaging, the racing industry’s reputation, commercial interests and/or bringing, or potentially bringing, your employer or Racing Victoria into disrepute;
  • disclose only publicly available information. You must not comment on or disclose confidential information (eg matters which are the subject of an ongoing stewards inquiry or investigation).


3.2. Responsibility 
You are personally responsible for the content of your posts online. In this context, you have a responsibility to ensure that:

  • any information about racing that you provide is informed and factually accurate and does not breach the Rules of Racing; and
  • if you are offering your personal perspective on a matter related to racing, be mindful that your commentary and opinion does not cause damage to the image of racing.You are required to:
  • ensure you do not post material that is obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, discriminatory or hateful to another person or entity, including about Racing Victoria, its employees, officials, other participants, contractors, partners, competitors and/or other racing-related individuals or organisations; and
  • ensure that you use caution and discretion before joining Facebook groups if such groups are acting against the interests of Racing Victoria, or the racing industry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Pretty difficult to see what the issue is without seeing the post. Storm/teacup spring to mind.

there is no feckin issue. Tommo has been sucked in by this PC touchy feely bunch of losers calling itself a government..thats the real issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Oh please...you're dealing with The KING of INTEGRITY knowledge here

Go away and read the JCA website and educate yourself instead of coming off an IGNORAMOUS base

You're the king of fairytales.

Easy to see why people don't want you here.

How can reading the JCA website help me find the non facts in a post from a jockey. Is the post on the website?  I went there and couldn't find it.

I'm not coming from any such base, but I do know how to differentiate fact from opinion. Something you can't do.

 

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The starting base for a Careless Riding charge causing a fall...

One was Cooksley the other Innes....who incedently has appealed...good luck with that

Then read up on mitigating and aggravating circumstances which ultimately affects the end sentence

Btw...stop corrupting threads with your "dickheadedness"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not corrupting anything. One of the purposes of a site like this is to ask questions related to the thread topic, if you haven't seen the answer 

You just referred to a bunch of rules that require interpretation. Ergo subjective. Subjective assessment can not be described as fact. Ergo, you cannot claim what she wrote is not fact if it is her personal perspective and cannot be factually verified to be wrong.

Good luck with that. Yet you've been claiming what she wrote is not factual - in some people's opinion, maybe.

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea she stated as fact Cooksley got a better deal than Inness because they're inconsistent...when they quoted exactly the same one month automatic charge for both...which she didn't read

When one had an aggravating record and the other a mitigating good record

Hence the 2 week diff

Shes casting aspersions on the Integrity of the Feds by coming off an ignorant knowledge base...like you

The FACT is she's ignorant of the rules...that's a FACT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...