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 4 hours 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.

[curious]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

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

What I quoted above is the law? Your question doesn't make sense.

[curious]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

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.

I reckon you are as stupid a prick as he is if that's what you think.

[Chief Stipe]

12 minutes ago, curious said:

I reckon you are as stupid a prick as he is if that's what you think.

Point to specifically in BORA that justifies YOUR position. 

[Chief Stipe]

19 minutes ago, curious said:

What I quoted above is the law? Your question doesn't make sense.

Ok I'll put the moot another way.  What part of the NZTR revised 801 Rule conflicts with Rule 41 (1)?

[curious]

39 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Ok I'll put the moot another way.  What part of the NZTR revised 801 Rule conflicts with Rule 41 (1)?

2. or that is otherwise harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry;

So, for example, critical comment that may be harmful to the industry seems to go way beyond the BOR rights' limitations doesn't it? Whether or not they deem it harmful to the industry can not be a Rule of Racing if it conflicts with the BOR. This seems to go way beyond it, so is probably not valid because of that conflict?

[Chief Stipe]

50 minutes ago, curious said:

2. or that is otherwise harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry;

So, for example, critical comment that may be harmful to the industry seems to go way beyond the BOR rights' limitations doesn't it? Whether or not they deem it harmful to the industry can not be a Rule of Racing if it conflicts with the BOR. This seems to go way beyond it, so is probably not valid because of that conflict?

BORA doesn't apply to NZTR as it is an Incorporated Society i.e. self governing.

[curious]

7 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

BORA doesn't apply to NZTR as it is an Incorporated Society i.e. self governing.

It certainly does and was in the Morton case. It's not a private company but one performing a "public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law."

Try again.

[curious]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

It certainly does and was in the Morton case. It's not a private company but one performing a "public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law."

Try again.

From the report on the Morton case.

And the introductory words he used - "came across as" - made it plain he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to.

McKechnie's words from the decision and prior, as Morty has said here. As I said. Try again.

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, curious said:

It certainly does and was in the Morton case. It's not a private company but one performing a "public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law."

Try again.

It's an Incorporated Society and by law is entitled to manage its own rules.

Try again.

Do you think Judge Ema Aitken will use BORA as a defence?

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, curious said:

From the report on the Morton case.

And the introductory words he used - "came across as" - made it plain he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to.

McKechnie's words from the decision and prior, as Morty has said here. As I said. Try again.

That was never tested in a higher court and you are being selective in your quotation.  In my opinion McKechnie was wrong.

Regardless the question is do the new rules change things?