iteruka

Dead baiting NSW

197 posts in this topic

On 11/28/2017 at 5:56 PM, Emotive said:

Agreed Houndfan. The rules are quite clear. They are available to view on the GRNZ website. This matter should not ever be considered trivial, or "pathetic" as quoted above. What is disheartening is that the membership is not united on this matter, and that progress has been painfully slow. 

Rules are clear and so is the Law about Tresspassing.on private property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shelley said:

Rules are clear and so is the Law about Tresspassing.on private property.

You are no better than the people commiting these acts. How do you defend someone doing this?

I brought this up over on kiwidogz and will do so again - "My Grandaughter works for the Coles,and i assure you ,she wouldnt work there if any off the above was going on" - Now your defending him after the photos are out in the open. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing there.... you couldn’t tell what that is, photo quality is terrible. People have clearly trespassed and caused all these problems to begin with... there were a number of cases thrown out in qld because of the tresspassing. It is illegal. I will defend them too because they have done nothing wrong, they work hard and get results from that hard work. Good on them for defending there granddaughter because they are working for one of the best trainers in the county. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, greyhoundlover said:

There is nothing there.... you couldn’t tell what that is, photo quality is terrible. People have clearly trespassed and caused all these problems to begin with... there were a number of cases thrown out in qld because of the tresspassing. It is illegal. I will defend them too because they have done nothing wrong, they work hard and get results from that hard work. Good on them for defending there granddaughter because they are working for one of the best trainers in the county. 

so what your saying people trespassed   a number of cases were thrown out       how many and how many were proven  so what you and shelley are trying to say correct me if im wrong it doesnt matter if it was happening  because they trespassed they get get out of jail free card best of luck with that its the stigma and  presence they bring to greyhound racing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alltheway!!! said:

You are no better than the people commiting these acts. How do you defend someone doing this?

I brought this up over on kiwidogz and will do so again - "My Grandaughter works for the Coles,and i assure you ,she wouldnt work there if any off the above was going on" - Now your defending him after the photos are out in the open. 

gees all the way they shouldnt have trespassed  lol lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gary1 said:

so what your saying people trespassed   a number of cases were thrown out       how many and how many were proven  so what you and shelley are trying to say correct me if im wrong it doesnt matter if it was happening  because they trespassed they get get out of jail free card best of luck with that its the stigma and  presence they bring to greyhound racing

they still all received life bans did they not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shelley said:

Rules are clear and so is the Law about Tresspassing.on private property.

That is a very interesting point of view Shelley. Based on your theory: if someone witnessed a murder while illegally on the property the murder was committed, the murderer would get off, because the evidence was reported by a trespasser????? Is that correct???? There have been a number of animal welfare prosecutions in New Zealand which involved undercover footage taken by animal activists who obtained the footage by trespass. SAFE has been actively involved in such stings. To my knowledge, the verdicts were not overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Emotive said:

So why the sarcasm and emoji? :rolleyes:

 

Because the difference between a tanned skin and a raw one is f#ck all, they are both dead. Shelly is simply pointing out the stupidity of the rule. Just pure garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Because the difference between a tanned skin and a raw one is f#ck all, they are both dead. Shelly is simply pointing out the stupidity of the rule. Just pure garbage.

The rule is four years old, did you challenge the rule at the time, did any of the detractors challenge the rule at the time, did anyone at all challenge it at the time? I don't remember any challenge. Whether you think it's stupid or not, it remains the rule. Are you saying that because it is "stupid" we all should ignore it? Get over it, it is here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Emotive said:

The rule is four years old, did you challenge the rule at the time, did any of the detractors challenge the rule at the time, did anyone at all challenge it at the time? I don't remember any challenge. Whether you think it's stupid or not, it remains the rule. Are you saying that because it is "stupid" we all should ignore it? Get over it, it is here to stay.

Didn't even no the rule existed which is typical of the slack NZGRA. They pervert the rules, and do not gazette them, so little wonder having no knowledge of such a stupid rule. And yes, if I had knowledge of such a pathetic rule I would of challenged it. And yes, such a stupid rule should be treated as such, and ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Didn't even no the rule existed which is typical of the slack NZGRA. They pervert the rules, and do not gazette them, so little wonder having no knowledge of such a stupid rule. And yes, if I had knowledge of such a pathetic rule I would of challenged it. And yes, such a stupid rule should be treated as such, and ignored.

Didn't bother to read your email sent out at the time, didn't bother to check the advisory on the website, didn't bother to read the hard copy that was sent out to all LP's to be inserted in their rulebooks. You had the opportunity, the rule went through unopposed. No right to complain now, laziness is no excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Emotive said:

Didn't bother to read your email sent out at the time, didn't bother to check the advisory on the website, didn't bother to read the hard copy that was sent out to all LP's to be inserted in their rulebooks. You had the opportunity, the rule went through unopposed. No right to complain now, laziness is no excuse.

Being as you know it all, maybe you would be so kind as to cut and paste the date, and where it was Gazetted according to the NZGRA rule  8.1 d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, aquaman said:

Being as you know it all, maybe you would be so kind as to cut and paste the date, and where it was Gazetted according to the NZGRA rule  8.1 d

Maybe you should have put your contempt aside at the time, and read the information sent out to all. The changes made were important and very necessary to the future of the sport. Far more important than an objection to a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emotive said:

Maybe you should have put your contempt aside at the time, and read the information sent out to all. The changes made were important and very necessary to the future of the sport. Far more important than an objection to a tie.

I was never aware of the rule until recently, cannot remember ever seeing any info on it, but what worries me most is that there was no input asked from the members/users beforehand.

     The rule is stupid, it defies logic and  if I had questioned it , my bet going on previous experience would have been that I would not likely have got a reply or acknowledgement. Sue starts this thread quoting the Aussie example. In my opinion the Aussie case as ridiculous, Ok it may not meet the rules but it did not warrant the resulting sentence. What if the trainer had fed the dead carcasses to his dogs. That would have been legal so what's the difference and if it was not legal what about other types of animal carcasses we feed to dogs.

   Where I live a neighbour lets his son in law exercise his dogs, Two large mongrels and two ankle biters on his property and it is not unusual for them to catch a rabbit. I cannot help but wonder at the irony that a fence between us is all that makes it not a national outcry.

  Actually this brings up another point. If you do not agree with the a rule how do you get your views heard?

We used to address this through our clubs who would put forward remits at the AGM. This year the AGM was just a financial statement. What about other business?

    We used to have a LP REP, now that has finished. The new management very quickly changed our letterhead and seem intent on disenfranchising the members as well.

As for you Alltheway saying Shelley is as guilty as the perpetrator's of the current debacle , you are way out of line and display you have an ulterior motive. Firstly there has been no one found guilty of anything yet , although you are wishing and secondly Shelly has only told the truth.

Emotive and others who say it is alright to gather video evidence illegally think back to the Tama Iti case where  the very clear video evidence was thrown out because it was filmed illegally.

 

    Cheers Mike

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Emotive said:

Maybe you should have put your contempt aside at the time, and read the information sent out to all. The changes made were important and very necessary to the future of the sport. Far more important than an objection to a tie.

Never saw any information on this rule, my bet it was bought in without gazetting. The changes made are a knee jerk reaction that is highly hypocritical. They are absolutely stupid, and reflect badly on the idiots that voted it in. It needs to be thrown out.

I do not know what contempt has to do with this subject, i can only repeat, it was all news to me, and i only learn't of it as a result of the outrageous sentence given to the poor Australian for using a dead skin on a lure. Hopefully he can find justice, and have it thrown out. He certainly has my support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.