patroyd,Back to me:One thing I found hard to swallow was VCAT's...

patroyd,

Back to me:
One thing I found hard to swallow was VCAT's acceptance of police opinion that certain persons were drunk when the BAR20 manager argued that they were not.

Imagine how many drink driving convictions would be handed out if mere police opinion was accepted instead of breathalizer evidence. Like .05, the unacceptable level of intoxification needs to be clearly defined as a specific blood alcohol reading. Bad behaviour is a separate matter and should not be tolerated whether the patrons are sober or drunk.

Ok then a request for the evidence that patrons were intoxicated.

Who makes the request for the names and addresses and breath enalasys of said patrons.

The existing board or a new board and a clean skin with a liquor licence in which case the old board would need to quit.

The new board would need to meet and discuss and document in house codes of conduct and penalties for the board, the licence holder, the crowd controllers and the patrons.

Then convince VCAT that PPN is in good safe hands.

That's a tall order to full fill in 28 days.

Is there any way the minority shareholders are able to call an EGM.