mardigras Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 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 January 22, 2019 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Oh ffs I also said "warning..if critical of the employer" Repeated...down the road Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 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 January 22, 2019 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Bunch of incompetents?? Pretty serious I would have thought... ...especially if they've come to an agreement re social media... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 57 minutes ago, Thomass said: Wed be the only Racing Jurisdiction in the World who allows this on social media from license holders... Good to see we're leading the way if that is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Spreading lies and/or misinformation... ..aided and abetted by The Informant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Just now, Thomass said: Bunch of incompetents?? Pretty serious I would have thought... ...especially if they've come to an agreement re social media... Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Just now, Thomass said: Spreading lies and/or misinformation... ..aided and abetted by The Informant? You do that on here. Nothing seems to have changed as a result of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, mardigras said: Crap. I agree. I do it quite often. If I couldn't I'd leave also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, curious said: I agree. I do it quite often. If I couldn't I'd leave also. So during the crisis of free speech...in which your Rector lied You were all over her...on social media? Edited January 22, 2019 by Thomass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Thomass said: So during the crisis of free speech...in which your Rector lied You were all over her...on social media? Yes. You know my opinion on free speech. Of course I would speak out. Edited January 22, 2019 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Yes but that was a FACT Johnsons was "crap" Retweeted around social media...including The Informant to embarrass the Feds... ...going about their duty.... A License Holder can do this in your World? But nowhere else in the World? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 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); Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankiwi Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) deleted double-up post.... Edited January 22, 2019 by Yankiwi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandpiper Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Thomass said: If someone tells me I've got a mental illness and I should top myself... whats one to do...ignore it? yeah its best not to act on this one and if it happens a lot consider using anonymous social media less frequently Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Pretty difficult to see what the issue is without seeing the post. Storm/teacup spring to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopia Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 Johnson was critical of the Feds favouring Cooksley over Innes.... ...you simply can't have License Holders questioning the Feds Integrity But then she got the FACTS wrong See above for the Oz rule wrt that Of course there's an issue Thats why she deleted it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 Looks like she offered a personal perspective then. From what has been stated, it's impossible to say whether it is or isn't factual. Where are the supposed parts that are not factual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 22, 2019 Author Share Posted January 22, 2019 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 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 January 23, 2019 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 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" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 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 January 23, 2019 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 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 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.