DTD Court day 1

[chrisbruce]

I have just spent an hour or 2 sitting in court to observe the hearing for Dusk til Dawn.

As I arrived Rob was just taking the stand and spent an hour explaining the club to the magistrates with the help of questions from his solicitor. I believe Simon Trumper had taken the stand this morning.

Then it was the turn of one of the objector’s barrister's to fire the questions.

Rob needed to be on his guard as the barrister systematically tried to discredit the demand for the club and the viability on a day to day financial basis. How many dealers will you need each day? How many chefs, How many valets? What about on busy days? What about festivals? How many players? How much money will they spend? Where will they spend it? Why did you build the club before you got a license?

Rob was being put through the wrangle but dealt with it all in his own brutally honest and frank way which ironically seemed to disorientate the barrister.

In the gallery there was an array of men in suits taking notes on everything that was said working for the press or the barristers I don’t know?

As I left the barrister continued his probing trying to find a weakness or contradiction to exploit.

What the magistrates make of it all I don’t know?

Its going to be a long week for Poker though and for Rob.

[ACE2M]

this stinks, corporate protectionism.

Good luck Rob.

[Dingdell]

As long as they keep going back to the basic facts - the club is in Nottingham, Rob is a good guy who has gone through all the hoops correctly, the others are worried about competition. They are objecting, not the magistrates, and they have a long way to go to make a decent case imho.

[Dewi_cool]

This makes me so ******* angry I dont know how Rob & the team manage,  lets hope common sense prevails

[Dingdell]

This makes me so ******* angry I dont know how Rob & the team manage,  lets hope common sense prevails

Agreed - and to be honest viability is not really anyone elses business -although the casino's obviously think it's viable otherwise they wouldn't be worried about him opening in the first place!

Did I have to answer to anyone when I started my business? No. It is ridiculous.

[Karabiner]

I just don't understand why "demand" seems to be the fulcrum of the objector's argument.

If the demand isn't there then the place will go busto.

If the demand isn't there then the casinos have nothing to worry about.

I'm confused

Surely common sense must prevail here.

[lazaroonie]

the good news, is that they are off and running, after months and months of procrastination by the "competition".

As I understand it the GC and the Local Authority have already given their blessing to the club. Therefore it would be a major shock for a magistrate to reverse this without some new earth shattering evidence being presented.

[neeko]

I just don't understand why "demand" seems to be the fulcrum of the objector's argument.

What i don't understand is why it is even a consideration for "the State" to use this as a criteria for deciding whether to agree a licence or not.

Have we become a Communist state when i was not looking, and "the State" regulates at what level supply is set?

[Dingdell]

I just don't understand why "demand" seems to be the fulcrum of the objector's argument.

What i don't understand is why it is even a consideration for "the State" to use this as a criteria for deciding whether to agree a licence or not.

Have we become a Communist state when i was not looking, and "the State" regulates at what level supply is set?

Blimey someone was listening at Uni.......but good point.

[jizzemm]

I just don't understand why "demand" seems to be the fulcrum of the objector's argument.

What i don't understand is why it is even a consideration for "the State" to use this as a criteria for deciding whether to agree a licence or not.

Have we become a Communist state when i was not looking, and "the State" regulates at what level supply is set?

 

[Harmony26]

Thanks for the report, Chris.

Let's hope the Magistrate sees sense.

Thinking of Rob and the team - we are all behind you, guys.

B&H

[Robert HM]

I just don't understand why "demand" seems to be the fulcrum of the objector's argument.

What i don't understand is why it is even a consideration for "the State" to use this as a criteria for deciding whether to agree a licence or not.

Have we become a Communist state when i was not looking, and "the State" regulates at what level supply is set?

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", so it's all your fault.

We live in a world of constantly increasing regulation and I, for one, am getting completely p*ssed off.

[K9sixtwo]

Frankly the Magistrates are Laymen and women from everyday life.... They will be guided by the Magistrates Clerk and as has been said with Rob giving honest answers it will through them a bit..asking about Chefs and Valets is a smokescreen... If, as has been previously mentioned,all they submittted was a couple of scabby brochures and corporate reports then for them to whip a "Rabbit out of the hat" would amount to abuse of due process... Hopefully day two will reveal nothing untoward... The Clerk will be guiding the court and we can but hope it's a young fellow-me-lad who has a love of "our" game , as he will be guiding the magistrates. It looks largely that the suits are just going through the paces....

Remember Rob ask them to re-phrase the question when they have launched into a long and labourious question ....Its my top tip !!!

Im on the edge of my seat following this and so want DTD to suceed

[thediceman]

I just don't understand why "demand" seems to be the fulcrum of the objector's argument.

What i don't understand is why it is even a consideration for "the State" to use this as a criteria for deciding whether to agree a licence or not.

Have we become a Communist state when i was not looking, and "the State" regulates at what level supply is set?

The "state" do control the applications for new large supermarkets and consider the supply/demand factor before agreeing or disagreeing to their application. As far as I was aware this is the only consumer sector that is subject to such controls and thought normal market forces are the only determining factor in the creation and subsequent success/failure of any business. Ironically the legislative control of supermarkets applications is to ensure the powerful supermarkets can't just flood the market. Any ruling in support of the objectors against DTD would be giving the power to the casino cartel. DTD must be allowed to open and trade as per any other normal business and the objectors should be made to not only pay all court costs but should cover all DTD's running costs during the adjournment.  

[Tonji]

the objectors should be made to not only pay all court costs but should cover all dtd's running costs during the adjournment.

is that legally an option....I do hope so