stay order granted by supreme court, page-3

While sitting in the Supreme Court over 2 days listening to the barrister for the police argue that the world would end if the BAR20 liquor licence was not cancelled, I had time to reflect on the big picture and what changes should be made in the management of PPN to salvage what is left of our investment.

I believe that PPN needs a strong board of independent directors, with minority shareholder representation, as John Trimble cannot and should not run a listed public company on his own.

Having spent the greater part of my working life as a bureaucrat's bureaucrat reviewing administrative decisions and the application of penalties, my aim was to work my way through the options available to find the minimum sanction that would change a person's behaviour whether that be recommending a mere rap on the knuckles, a fine, demotion, sacking or prosecution for very serious offences. Natural justice required consideration of the minimum sanction first before moving through the options to the maximum.

In the matter of the BAR20 liquor licence, what would be the minimum sanction that would improve PPN's compliance with Victoria's liquor licencing laws?

In my opinion cancelling the BAR20 liquor licence and putting 150 people out of work is overkill given the changes that PPN has already implemented.

Did you know that statistically it is far more dangerous to stand on a railway platform or attend a church than walk past a gang of bikies late at night wearing an "I HATE BIKIES" tee shirt?

According to Wikipedia:
"In 2008, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research in Sydney, Australia reported 1,600 people were charged with committing a range of 27 criminal offenses in the state's "places of worship". But the figures showed only 282 people were charged in premises classified as adult entertainment with the same offenses.

A breakdown of the statistical figures showed that 85 people were assaulted in places of worship, compared to 66 at an adult entertainment premises.

Incidents of sexual assault and harassing and threatening behavior were also greater at places of worship. The report included churches, synagogues, monasteries, mosques, convents, cathedrals and chapels as places of worship.

Premises listed as adult entertainment sites included strip clubs, sex shops, brothels, massage parlors, gay clubs, gaming houses as well as gambling clubs. The center's interpretation was that people were just as likely to be assaulted or robbed in the sanctity of a church as they were in sex industry venues."

According to the Nightclub owners Forum:
"..... All available research and statistics, both local and international suggest that strip clubs have the lowest ratio of incidents for comparable categories of licensed premises...."

".... A recent US scientific study found the presence of strip clubs did not increase the number of crime incidents reported in localized areas surrounding the club as compared to the number of crime incidents reported in comparable localized areas that did not contain an adult venue...."

"..... In fact, the analyses implied the opposite, namely that areas surrounding strip clubs have smaller numbers of reported crime incidents than do corresponding areas surrounding the three control sites studied."All available research and statistics, both local and international suggest that strip clubs have the lowest ratio of incidents for comparable categories of licensed premises....."