NZTR's Rule 801 Update - Serious Racing Offence - public comment scope broadened

[hesi]

16 minutes ago, curious said:

If I say that I think Hesi is a stupid prick or that the NZTR board are a bunch of the same, then I'm simply expressing an opinion which I'm entitled to do under the BOR. Whether or not you feel insulted or abused, or an observer thinks you have been, doesn't come into it. Neither the Rules of Racing nor any other Act can over-ride that.

A very imprecise area.  There are certain things in the HDCA that are pretty clear cut, but 3. would have to have a precedent such as a case taken before the courts

3.Be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.

Edited 1 hour ago by hesi

[curious]

Racing Industry Act 2020

41 Rules must not conflict with any Act or general law

(1) A provision of any racing rules that conflicts with any provision of this Act, any other Act, or the general law of New Zealand is invalid.

Given the above, I would question whether some of the proposed rule is even valid.

[hesi]

 

NZTR may very well decide to take a case against the most obvious poster in Wightman, to test the law.

They have certainly signaled their uneasiness or whatever you want to call it with social media.

[curious]

12 minutes ago, hesi said:

A very imprecise area.  There are certain things in the HDCA that are pretty clear cut, but 3. would have to have a precedent such as a case taken before the courts

3.Be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.

I don't think it's imprecise at all. I'd be quite confident that my examples are not even close to "grossly offensive" by legal standards. The case would be laughed out of court.

[curious]

6 minutes ago, hesi said:

 

NZTR may very well decide to take a case against the most obvious poster in Wightman, to test the law.

They have certainly signaled their uneasiness or whatever you want to call it with social media.

I don't think they'd dare. Be the wrong bloke to pick on I'd say. They'd get hammered and waste begoodles of money. Be a great spectacle though. I wish they would!

[Murray Fish]

2 hours ago, curious said:

iii) otherwise in connection with horses, races or racing; [Amended 1 September 2020]

punter?

 

[Murray Fish]

2 hours ago, curious said:

h) every person who in any manner directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person on
their own behalf or on behalf of any other person, does or attempts to do any act or thing
for the purpose of securing any right, benefit or privilege which they or any such other
person is not entitled to receive under these Rules,

pardon!!!

ps. almost feel like playing up just to see what happens!!!  I'm sure I could come up with a few shit bombs!!! 

[Murray Fish]

53 minutes ago, hesi said:

NZTR may very well decide to take a case against the most obvious poster in Wightman, to test the law.

10,000% wrong road to go down...  just let him keep funding his horses!   sigh, he posts on a 100% Racing (FB) Group that doesn't get much pick up by the big 'algorithms', if any at all!!!   He has his supporters!  Let him Howl!!! 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

I don't think they'd dare. Be the wrong bloke to pick on I'd say. They'd get hammered and waste begoodles of money. Be a great spectacle though. I wish they would!

I don't believe NZTR would get hammered.  Afterall didn't he throw in his license to avoid getting "hammered"? 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Racing Industry Act 2020

41 Rules must not conflict with any Act or general law

(1) A provision of any racing rules that conflicts with any provision of this Act, any other Act, or the general law of New Zealand is invalid.

Given the above, I would question whether some of the proposed rule is even valid.

Which laws?  Given your rudimentary understanding of BORA and HRA I'd be interested to know specifically what laws you refer to.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

If I say that I think Hesi is a stupid prick or that the NZTR board are a bunch of the same, then I'm simply expressing an opinion which I'm entitled to do under the BOR.

That's a very moot point regarding your entitlement under the BORA and as I said above I'm sure that Freedom of Expression covers calling anyone a "stupid prick" but that is a different Act and doesn't apply to you as an individual.  If you persist in calling @hesi a stupid prick online he has every right to ask you to desist and if you fail to do so can use the HDCA to force you to desist.