"A furious Melbourne man is spending $1000 per day on armed guards to protect his home
A Melbourne pair have taken a drastic and expensive measure to protect their home from gangs threatening them and their property."

http://www.news.com.au/news/national/a-furious-melbourne-man-is-spending-1000-per-day-on-armed-guards-to-protect-his-home/news-story/93d04ec37623f50389748a6b04d7da6b

How can this possibly be, the Victorian Government and Police have said that there is no gang problem?

Perhaps it's not a gang, just a loose coalition of missfits?

Of course there's no crime if it's not illegal ! How else is the Left supposed to get its votes ?
There was a clip on the News this arvo about some building sites being in the grip of some union thugs.

$1000 would get you a semi-automatic, a pump-action shotgun, and a handgun for the missus, plus ammo to boot...
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php

AC,

Not relevant, it's a US site.

Dear AC,

Don't worry ol Is Mise is getting a bulge in his pants just thinking about an 'armed citizenry'.

But I'm not sure we are getting the full story.

One interpretation from the facts we are given is that the wealthy owner of a beach side property was annoyed at a gathering of young people on the street outside his property which is a beach access. He told them to move on, they told him to go jump and so he went back inside and got a baseball bat and started threatening violence. Some of the group started throwing items at him and when he retreated kept up the barrage.

So is it 'African gangs' who were responsible? Well judging by the picture there were a pretty broad mixture of skin colour present.

http://c-5uwzmx78pmca09x24quo-a-uav-kwux2eisiuiqhmlx2evmb.g01.msn.com/g00/3_c-5eee.uav.kwu_/c-5UWZMXPMCA09x24pbbx78ax3ax2fx2fquo-a-uav-kwu.isiuiqhml.vmbx2fbmvivbx2fiux78x2fmvbqbgqlx2fJJAB0kh.quox3fpx3d288x26ex3d030x26ux3d4x26yx3d48x26wx3dnx26tx3dnx26q98k.uizsx3dquiom_$/$/$/$/

But let's not let that get in the way of a good stereotype.

We can even join the game. Let's see. The bloke in question is well into his middle age with an attractive blonde girlfriend half that. He has extensive tattoos and a propensity for getting his own way. He acts like a cashed up, foul mouthed bogan ready to have a go at anyone who crosses him, one capable of spending $1000 a day to prove a point.

Further he was unwilling to have his full name published.

There are lazy assumptions to be easily made about him too. Who knows if they are correct but isn't the stereotype the deciding factor?

Actually try this for a link.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/fed-up-melbourne-couple-spend-dollar1000-a-day-to-have-two-armed-guards-protect-their-property-after-a-string-of-run-ins-with-violent-teenage-gangs/ar-BBSTijd?fullscreen=true#image=3

Thanks for the photo Steele, I made a similar comment about "Frank" Bogan when the question was thrown at me about this $1000/day protection. The photo shows a group of young dressed for the beach, 11 of whom can be clearly distinguished as white, lacking a decent suntan, whilst 5 can be seen to be black and obviously well tan'd. If they made their way to Frank's front gate with the intention of causing him mischief, they came dressed in the wrong gear. the entire group are dressed for a day out at the beach, and not one can be seen with any kind of a weapon.

Posted by SteeleRedux

So is it 'African gangs' who were responsible? Well judging by the picture there were a pretty broad mixture of skin colour present.

Answer- Even though there do appear to be white complexioned people in SteeleRedux's picture the aggressive ones appear to be of a dark complexion in the front near the home owner and their vehicle.

Loitering can be a crime. The home owner has a right to protect their property from damage.

//But I'm not sure we are getting the full story.//

Not on ACA you're not. They only do grossly unbalanced and sensationalist crap. Tabloid journalism for the telly.

The home owner has a right to protect their property from damage.
Canem Malum,
Agree in full. Anyone have alternatives if the Police aren't motivated to help ?

Indy, how about you spell out those rights, and to what extent one should go to protect ones property.

Paul,

For property rights have a dekko at this,
http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/common-law-and-private-property-0

You make some wild assumptions about the dress of the lads an' lasses, most are dressed common casual.

What the incident does bring out though is that if one has the money one can have armed protection but if one is of the common or working class then one is denied any protection except that provided by a 000 call (politicians excepted, they get protection at the public expense).

Paul1405,
To the extent of getting the upper hand & if the intruder/aggressor is still not inclined to stop & leave then it should be to the extent of physically disabling the culprit !
I had my life plans ruined by several break-ins & thefts & was not able to recover either financially nor psychologically by the time I retired

There will be more of this as the law, police and the political class get weaker and more cowardly in Australia. The law, as in engaging a lawyer to obtain a fair go in courts, has always been something for the rich. So will it be in matters of personal safety: if you can't afford protection, you will not be safe.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

In my opinion, irrespective of whatever picture you see, there's a group of young people gathered outside this individual's home, motivated by, who knows what? Whatever the circumstances, or their motives, if they're told to leave and don't, it's a definite 'breach of the peace.' It's immaterial who the occupant is, or the skin colour of those gathered outside. I would suggest you wouldn't wish to have an unknown group of young people loitering about your home, particularly when the only persons (apparently) therein, are the complainant and his wife.

It's also utter rubbish whether the complainant has body art all over him, and I'm surprised you decided to go for that. You would know, many Veterans have multiple tattoos? Nor does the age or attractiveness of his wife/partner, have any bearing either. The law is quite clear, and as usual, in Victoria, the Chief Commissioner Police Mr. ASHTON is 'missing in action.'

I would urge you Steele for just a moment; please think about it? Would you wish to have a group of noisy teens loitering outside your dwelling during 'silent hours' (night)? Given their easy access to all manner of drugs and alcohol? Even if they're all clean, I wouldn't wish for them to be outside my home, given my and my Wife's age.

If this fellow is prepared to spend a grand a night for private security, apparently he has no faith in VICPOL, and that's a terrible indictment on them.

Finally, I'm inclined to agree with Toni LAVIS - perhaps we don't have the entire story, there may be much long term enmity existing between the two?

Hey SteeleRedux,
It seems reasonable that I don't have enough background info to make a really good judgement on it.

I don't like rich people who think they also own the foreshore where they live.
That belongs to everybody, but homeowners do have a right to hold issue if youths are hanging around doing crime.
Homeowners have a right to live in peace free from youth crime as well.

Looking at the bigger picture it's about respect, which is a two way street.
If the kids aren't showing respect to the homeowners who live there, then they don't deserve any respect either.
If they have a 'Don't give a crap' attitude towards others then that's the way they should be treated themselves.

At some level I support the homeowners having a right to protect themselves and their property and they shouldn't have to pay $7000 a week to do it. They should be allowed to protect themselves and their property themselves.

That means 'Step on my lawn or touch my stuff and I will shoot you dead where you stand without hesitation or remorse', but you must understand that I don't want the streets flooded with firearms either, that will only end up in more criminals hands and things will spiral further out of control. More people would get killed over pointless preventable things; but people would be able to protect their loved ones, home and property.

In the article I read they smashed his car.
Did he have CCTV and was anyone charged?
Anyone charged for threats of rape and murder, if that's what was said?

[Cont.]
If the politicians and cops aren't making the right decisions that keep our streets safe, I say homeowners should be able shoot the perpetrators of crime and destruction of property DEAD before they bring harm to anyone else.

It'll become the Wild West, but I can't stand by and say that people should be forced to live in fear and become targets in their own homes because the system allows it.

I don't care what the law says in this regard, People have a right to defend themselves in their own home with whatever means are necessary.
They don't have a right to have their lives forfeited by someone else who wanted to break the rules first.

If someone else wants to play the stupid games they deserve to win the stupid prizes, not you.

Hi there INDIVIDUAL & CANEM MALUM...

'An individual is allowed to protect his property and those in it, against unlawful acts.' Just common sense really, hence the 'Common Law,' much of it re-introduced into Statute Law these days. If we were in the United States and were confronted with precisely the same set of circumstances, if it were not handled very carefully and sensitively, it could well result in a 'blood bath.'

I cannot understand why VICPOL aren't taking more significant action in these isolated cases of street criminality occasioned by some African Youth Gangs (mainly Sudanese youth according to my info.) and nip their existence in the bud, before they get right out of hand, and resort to F/A'S as their weapons of choice.

There's nothing inherently wrong with VICPOL members. I served with them during CHOGM in 1983. They needed additional support from other States, and I found they're as good as any copper in the Country in my view.

Today I think its Leadership they're lacking, commencing with Christine NIXON (daughter of Ross NIXON ex NSWPOL and a top copper), followed by Simon OVERLAND and now Graham ASHTON. All three were and are; weak, divisive, and in Mr. ASHTON'S case under too much stress.

I'm also leaning towards there being more
to this story than what we're being told.
We should hold our judgements until we
learn the full facts. Frank doesn't look
like the type of guy who'd tolerate any
questionable behaviour from anyone.

strange how many are willing to wait for facts on this one. Maybe the left have learned a little after being caught out numerpus times supporting a narrative without facts. Look at how the whole leftist media cruficied the innocent teenage Trump supporter before ending up with egg on their face for the *%* th time.

SBS - had on interesting film on last night
on Donald Trump. "Michael Moore's - Fahrenheit 11/9".
I couldn't watch all of it. It made me ill.

Foxy,

Moore has that effect on people.

Yes - he's very good at covering controversial
issues. In this case US President Trump.
Quite a horrific expose of a man totally
unqualified for the job.

'Quite a horrific expose of a man totally
unqualified for the job.'

may we get many more 'unqualified' for the job. The deplorables were smarty enough to see how much better Trump would be than Hilary. Amazing you guys and girls still throwing little tantrums. Get over it. Any impeachment yet?

runner,

Trump will either be allowed to resign like Nixon
did or he'll be impeached. It's just a matter
of time. The evidence against Mr Trump is mounting
up - and we should get the results in February.

Come on Foxy, you have got to stop swallowing the swamp propaganda whole.

Trump has done more for the unemployed particularly minority group employment than anyone since Reagan.

He has repaired almost 40% of the catastrophic mess that idiot Obama left. As we get to see more that bloke did, it is becoming obvious he wanted to destroy middle America, while giving billions in government handouts to his lefty crony capitalist mates & donors.

Be careful that the hate of trump doesn't make a fool of you.

//Quite a horrific expose of a man totally
unqualified for the job.//

There are actually very few formal qualifications required for the American presidency. It's supposed to be the land of opportunity, where even a man born in a humble log cabin can be one of their greatest leaders.

The American people have simply extended their democratic ideals to the logical extent, to the basis where they do not only refrain from discrimination on the base of race, creed, class or colour... but also on the basis of ability.

Toni lavishly,
Unlike Australia where ignorance & incompetence are a prerequisite nowadays.

//Unlike Australia where ignorance & incompetence are a prerequisite nowadays.//

Mate, if you're so wonderful and clever and not at all full of yourself, why don't you have a crack at it? I mean, you'd be a shoe-in, right? Seeing as you're superior to your local member, why not just nick their job? It's good money.

How did Trump get into someone hiring security in Melbourne?

ttbn,

Ask runner -he brought up Trump on page 4.

Forget guns, try large dogs. A big Rottweiler knocks them over and bites them. Handler said they were shouting at me which upset my dog and then they kicked my dog so he bit them!
Then the best bit some seven foot thug with his trousers half way down his back side and a hoody mumbling he didn't do nothing! The cutsey Rottie, tongue out, visibly smiling at the camera. How do you find the defendant, members of the jury?

//Forget guns, try large dogs.//

The man speaks a lot of sense - large scary looking dogs are a much better deterrent than a couple of fat, sweaty, wannabe-cops.

How do you keep a large dog in your pocket?

Toni Lavis,
And do something for the likes of you ? You've got to be kidding. There are victims of Govt all over this country, do you ever give them a thought ? I don't think so, you don't come across as a community minded citizen.

I don't know Issy, How do you keep a large dog in your pocket? Let him play fetch the ball.
While I'm waiting for your funny punch line, I'll throw one up the kids gave me;

What is RED and smells like WHITE PAINT?

....so you are not kept in suspense waiting for the hilariously funny punch line I'll give it to you now;

RED PAINT!

Yeah, it wasn't funny when the grandkids told me, but you have to laugh after all they are your pride and joy.

Can't laugh at Frank Bogan and his $1000/day security, he's getting ripped off. A certain former Oz heavy weight boxing champ would do it for much less, assuming he's still in the business.

A little story Issy, I know you love my little stories.

Some years back a plumber who was owned, I think $3k, by a well off eastern subs business owner for private work done at his posh mansion. Despite many letters of demand, and numerous un-taken phone calls to his business ("tell the prick I'm not here" stuff to the receptionist). This millionaire took the attitude, only pay the bills you have to, why pay a plumber, after all "the yellow pages are full of plumbers!", get another when you need one.
Being so fed up, and getting nowhere, the plumber took action. He drove around to the business premises of Mr M, a mobile call to the receptionist "please xxx (my wife, they were now on a first names) just answer yes or no, and hang up, is M in his office?" ..."yes". Within a minute P is up the stairs with the smartly dressed X-boxer following close behind, P barged into M's office.All the x-boxer did was stand in the office doorway, without uttering a word, or make any gestures etc, nothing. The up shot was M wrote out a company cheque on the spot for $3500, which included collection expenses. The parting words from the plumber to M was "This cheque better not bounce, or my friend will be back to return it to you PERSONALLY!"

//How do you keep a large dog in your pocket?//

With considerably more ease than you do a fat, sweaty, rent-a-cop.

Traditionally, Is Mise, large dogs are kept in the yard or house, where they are best placed to protect the property. After all, when a burglars is sneaking up to your backdoor via your backyard, the best place for a large dog is in the backyard. It's no good if you've stuck him in your pocket, then put your trews through the wash, and now the dog has to be dried and straightened out before he'll be of any use.

//Toni Lavis,
And do something//

No, of course not. You wouldn't want to go doing anything about stuff, not when you can sit at your computer and whine about it instead. Imagine if the problem got fixed... what would you have to whine about then?

Although I reckon you'd manage to find something, indy. You are a champion whiner.

Imagine if the problem got fixed.
Toni Lavis,
fat chance of that happening with characters like you around !

Toni I have an alternative suggestion, if one had a trained 'killer budgie' one could keep said 'killer budgie' in ones pocket, at the ready to emerge on command and peck the unsuspecting assailant to death. Even if that assailant is a Jehovah Witness!
I am glad someone mentioned Jehovah Witnesses, I am being harassed by JW's of late. No less than three times in under a week. The other morning at 5am there is this "shady" looking character, shorts, t-shirt and sandals well shady in my opinion, who wears such garb if they do not have criminal intent. The bloke is stuffing pieces of paper in letter boxes, on seeing me he walks my way, in a most threatening manner, in my opinion, the chirpy "good morning, how are you today." did not fool me for a moment, a criminal if I ever saw one! Hands me the paper, an invitation to come to gospel readings at the local JW Kingdom Hall. Obviously a blind to lure me there, so they could shake me down. Then within a day or two, a pair of JW's are knocking on my door, wanting to give me the good news, what bloody good news, had the criminal at my letter box been arrested? No such luck. Then I go up to the shopping centre and in the main street I am again accosted by a pair of loutish looking JW's one a well dressed woman in her 70's and the other a sinister looking chap about 75, in white shirt and tie. They mumbled something about a watch tower. Obviously wanting to lock me up and do me harm in a watch tower.
Fortunately in all cases I was able to release my 'killer budgie' from my pocket, quicker that they could draw their rottweilers from theirs. I say another small victory for the good guys!

I know quite a number of Jehovah Witnesses, they frequently drop in for a yarn etc. At no stage thoughout my life was I ever "harassed". That's just inflammatory & opportunistic hate speech by the insipid in our neighborhoods.
Even though I don't subscribe to religion, I'd say give me a JW anytime over an australian educated Uni graduate.
They're doing far more damage to this Nation than JW's.

Indy, like so many crusty old conservatives you can't see the funny side of anything. How could you have a 'Killer Budgie'. But if you want to get up the nose of a conservative just tell him a joke. You wont get a laugh, he will be too pessimistic for that.

My favourite sister-in-law was a JW, odd beliefs, they can be invasive, but mostly benign. We have only ever had one serious problem with the beliefs of JW's, we won they lost. Tonight I had a yarn with the local Salvo at the RSL, gave me a copy of War Cry to read, and its a good read, I gave him a few bob.

How could you have a 'Killer Budgie'
Paul1405,
We have one that's perpetually trying to undermine integrity & kill sense & it made itself known as Paul1405

Individual,

Paul's intentions are well meant.
He's trying to stop you guys from
becoming blowhards.

Dear o sung wu,

Good to hear from you old chap.

You said;

“In my opinion, irrespective of whatever picture you see, there's a group of young people gathered outside this individual's home, motivated by, who knows what? Whatever the circumstances, or their motives, if they're told to leave and don't, it's a definite 'breach of the peace.' It's immaterial who the occupant is, or the skin colour of those gathered outside. I would suggest you wouldn't wish to have an unknown group of young people loitering about your home, particularly when the only persons (apparently) therein, are the complainant and his wife.”

Let's see if we can tease this out to your satisfaction.

The house in question is a beach front property with a council street running down one side via which people can assess the Chelsea Pier. In fact if they hop off the train at Chelsea station or park in the Woolies car park this is probably the shortest route to get them there.
http://goo.gl/maps/NbXqGja5Rgy

Here is the street view. Note the house was purchased for $2,000,000 in 2015 and has obviously had some work done but most of the features in the CTV still are recognisable.
http://goo.gl/maps/gG22NpRGxfk

This is a public place and the public have a right to be there if they are acting lawfully. There is no indication that they were doing anything illegal before being told to clear off by the owner of a rather exclusive address.

I don't know the law in NSW but in the Victorian Summary Offences Act 1966 to prove a case for loitering against an ordinary member of the public intent must be proven. It certainly wasn't in this case.

Cont.

Cont.

49B Loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence
(1) A person who—
(a) is a known or reputed thief or is known or reputed to have committed drug-related offences; and (b) is loitering in a public place; and (c) is so loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence; and (d) while so loitering engages in conduct in the furtherance of the commission of that indictable offence— is guilty of an offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years.

This is how it should have gone down. The home owner could have asked the teenagers to move on in a non-confrontational manner. If they didn't he had no right to go and insist they do by brandishing a baseball bat. If he had clocked someone then I would have expected him to be firmly and appropriately dealt with by the law. Instead the police should have been called and if after they attended the youths were asked to move on yet refused to do so then and only then should enforcement action been taken.

After all the Chelsea police station is only 750 mts away by road.

So when you say: “Whatever the circumstances, or their motives, if they're told to leave and don't, it's a definite 'breach of the peace.', Only if those doing the instructing are police or others thus invested by the state with the power to do so. If I am standing on a street talking with a couple of mates and a homeowner tells me to clear off then I would happily tell him to mind his own business.

You wrote:

“It's also utter rubbish whether the complainant has body art all over him, and I'm surprised you decided to go for that.”

If you care to review my post you will see I was showing how easy it is to run with a stereotype rather than asserting anything. However when you impugned the motives of those on the thoroughfare not once but twice without any evidence weren't you directly engaged in stereotyping?

Foxy,
better advise Paul to stop blowing so hard if he can't handle the backdraft.

Steele Redux,
Integrity doesn't appear to be one of your stronger points. Why the excuses ?

Individual,

The concept behind the backDRAFT method
of posting is a breakthrough in the way
we communicate.

Hey Foxy,

"Paul's intentions are well meant.
He's trying to stop you guys from
becoming blowhards."

Blowhard were one of my favourite bands for a while some years ago.
I thank you for making me think of them.

Here's a catchy little tune to round off everyone's Saturday afternoon.
http://youtu.be/qD7ZjsHDvGw

the way
we communicate.
Foxy,
precisely, that's why I prefer to hear from the horses mouth instead of it's ar$e !

Posted by o sung wu, Thursday, 31 January 2019 12:24:35 PM

Answer- In answer to your comments here I agree it sounds like the management is the issue not the police. Seems that vicpol has become politicized- it would be interesting to see the legal view of the "separation of powers" in this case. It appears that law and order will suffer under the Victorian Labor Government no matter what they do- as far as numbers- as long as the police are afraid to do their job- due to communist diversity policies.

Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 2 February 2019 4:48:27 PM

Answer-

http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/criminal-offences/behaviour-in-public-that-is-against-law

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5423/what-types-of-behaviours-would-be-considered-as-di.aspx

With respect SteeleRedux

Perhaps the youths could be considered for the following...
- disorderly conduct in a public place

Also there is the provision for the quiet enjoyment of their property. When there is interaction between public and private spaces there is the potential for breaches of the peace. I believe that the owner of the property has a right not to have youths sitting on his car and 30 of them standing around the outside of his house without some reason. If the property owner became agitated I would have moved on if I was them. Anyway the council will possibly now block the alley for everyone for the actions of the few.

Perhaps the following is the underlying cause of the problem...

What constitutes a breach of peace is somewhat arbitrary and is open to interpretation- that is why social norms are important and why social situations can lead so easily to conflict with people from different cultures- you can't legislate on everything- so every culture should have their own nation. A rule that was once common- do in Rome as the Romans- seems to conflict with Communist diversity policy (one world people against capitalism).

It's Locke liberalism that seems to separate morality from the community- law resides in the massively centralized institutions - according to Locke in an attempt to allow man to live in a "state of nature". But this state of nature never existed- isn't natural- so this assumption of Locke Liberalism (on which our Liberal Democracy is based) leads to ridicule. Others believe power of law should be "localized". It's an example of the hands and the head of the community having different ideas.

In older times young people respected their elders- perhaps the problem is lack of family and community structure in the contemporary (modern?) world. If a youth played up the adult could chat with their parents.

There are always those nark's with an over inflated sense of authority, always at the ready to throw their weight around, weight which in reality they don't possess. This "Frank" Bogan could be such an individual. If this is the case, how dare "Frank" take the law into his own hands by the wielding of such an offensive weapon in the form of a baseball bat at kids he has firstly incited through verbal abuse, and threatening posture.
The general lack of police response, does in itself bring into question the actions of "Frank" and those involved. Not content with coming off second best in the whole affair "Frank" takes it upon himself to stir the matter up to get some satisfaction. The $1000/day armed guards, and for how many day? Along with alerting the tabloid TV show 'A Current Affair' that "I have a juicy one for you!" and then they run with it on prime time TV. All so poor "Frank" can feel vindicated.

Hired guards might need to be the way if this catches on.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-01/former-policeman-sues-dead-driver-insurer-for-one-million/10772362

The copper deserved $2 million.

Hey Canem Malum,

If a member of the public was to assist with the accident and went through exactly the same thing, they would get no compensation but get the same mental issues, possibly worse.

It would be hard to walk past and not help but you'd be tempted to not stop and help if you're going to end up a basket case..

And what if becoming affected by it costs you your own job and peace of mind, with no compensation?

I'm trying to understand why taxpayers have to pay a million bucks because some junkie wanted to get behind the wheel.

If you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.
He won his stupid prize, he's dead.

But why are taxpayers winning his stupid prizes too?
Did Australian taxpayers create this situation to deserve theft of their tax; which they paid out to improve the nation in good faith but which ended up being spent to pay for a junkies mistakes?

Maybe the junkie should've just been left to die without anyone else being harmed as a result; if taxpayers must pay for his mistakes, that's the corner I'm pushed into into making my decision.

But what if he'd hit others and there were other people injured?
And the trauma to the officer was from the innocent injured not the perpetrator?

Increase the penalties for amphetamine use whilst driving.
Maybe he'd have been caught and put off the road already and this situation might've been avoided.

That's all I can come up with...

Armchair Critic,
I totally agree !

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I apologise for the delay. For some unknown reason, Optus took a dive for 15 hours or so (our providers).

As far as what these fellows were doing, in NSW there's a 'catch-all' if you like, e.g., gathered for 'a common purpose' or 'where's there's a reasonable suspicion, of a breach of the Queen's peace.' However, you tended to invalidate my argument when you mentioned there's a public footpath running adjacent to the curtilages of this blokes property. I wasn't aware of the physical layout of the complainant's property; I wrongly assumed it was your standard block of land.

For this reason, it would be difficult for police, other than through 'admissions,' to prove they were there to do something unlawful to the bloke, his partner or to his property. Whereas, if the bloke is waving his Bat around 'outside' his Property line, and in a public place, he's also rendered himself liable of, 'making threats - while armed with an offensive weapon...'I think' the citation reads? Steele, my knowledge of the crim. Law, is as rusty, as am I.

And it's also true if police were to go with, 'loiter with intent' it requires the crown to prove 'intent' and that 'intent was unlawful.' Unfortunately, I've forgotten most of the 'pedestrian' laws if you like - the normal 'move on' powers used to prevent unlawful assembly, etc. (Public Order Act - C'Wealth) as well as many of the NSW State Statutes. Normally dealt with by Uniforms.

Be assured Steele; all States possess a suite of measures to prevent people from gathering for a common (unlawful) purpose. And will only act when a bona fide complaint is made, or a breach of the Queen's peace is imminent. Police are generally loathed to become in any way involved, in Industrial Disputes where the 'scabs' are driving in and out of a factory, while the regular workforce noisily demonstrates outside, the Gates.

I hope this goes in some way in explaining the general thinking when confronted with offences of the Public Order kind? Thanks, Steele for your kind wishes.

I wonder if those Judges, magistrates, lawyers & the ignorant public ever consider the "gut feelings" of attending police officers ?
When people do wrong they don't do wrong by the book, they do wrong by the situation of the moment as Police Officers do right in the situation of the moment.
Let the culprits whine & whinge until proven innocent not the other way round. These crapheads don't consider anyone else so why should anyone consider them ?
Lucky for them I'm not a Police Officer because there's no patience left to test.
The public has to show more support for the Police instead of the crapheads.

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote;

“I hope this goes in some way in explaining the general thinking when confronted with offences of the Public Order kind?”

Thank you. It certainly aligns with my rudimentary understanding of the rules in place.

If you look at the google earth link I posted you can see there are several hundred members of the public enjoying the pier, the water and surrounding beach. On a really warm day these numbers would likely triple at least. It is clear that the bulk of them would have used this thoroughfare as their access.

In fact it is even called “The Avenue”. Not a “court” or a “close” nor a “place” which might have indicated a different function.

You can see by the shadows in the CTV picture that it was taken in the late afternoon when hundreds of beach-goers would have been making their way from the beach past this property to their cars or to public transport. That many people in the street at that time of the day is certainly understandable given the likely beach crowd heading home.

Now they have to walk past a couple of blokes armed with Glocks giving them the evil eye. This bloke might not be in the same league as Lindsay Fox but one gets the sense of entitlement that perhaps drives him too.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-16/vic-govt-27not-happy27-about-fox-beachside-property-extension/5263140

Sure there may be things about this that we haven't been privy to that may well change our perceptions, but from where I sit it looks like an absolute beat up by a commercial TV station. Something we should obviously be taking with a large grain of salt.

Thank you STEELEREDUX for your most recent Post...

Money or 'filthy lucre' has been the downfall of many a good man and woman. With it, comes a sense of exercising some power over others, and as you and others have said, a sense of entitlement above and beyond everyone else.

When I was in the job I have to admit I didn't shun the O/T, but neither did I chase it. Nevertheless, if it were offered, I'd take it. Unlike another of my contemporaries who wore the epithet, the 'Overtime King' such was his thirst for a buck? The same fellow also retired as a D/Supt, and now travels the world with his wife at least twice a year, missing virtually no countries in his travels.

Whereas my wife and I quietly stay at home, and in my case, I'm lined up at God's front door? I have my hobbies, but not my health. My former colleague has his health but no hobbies other than traveling the world. Much like the intrepid Ancient Mariner, destined to roam the oceans and seas for the rest of time?

So Lindsay FOX and the 'Bat Wielding' 'FRANK' can have their beachside homes, their illustrious limousines, and their 'distended' Bank Accounts for all I care. I have my pensions, which provide us with sufficient Income, I earned it the hard way - so any more money would only cause me to worry more. And who needs that? Thanks, Steele.

A rather good analysis Steele.

There was a similar series of instances to the Lindsay Fox business in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs some years back. A number of well heeled Harbourside mansion owners, with an immense sense of entitlement, took it upon themselves to fence off crown land at the rear of their properties, and deny legal public access. The land grab was of small secluded tidal beaches which came up to the rear boundary of these millionaires mansions. Public access was usually from a narrow and rather steep pathway and steps from the roadway above. The public wishing to enjoy these secured harbourside locations found themselves confronted with fences and signs that read "Keep Out Private Property" some even had guard dogs to deter trespassers. Those that did enter would be confronted by the property owners etc, demanding they leave immediately, what according to the well heeled was now private property only available for their exclusive use.

The same fellow also retired as a D/Supt, and now travels the world with his wife at least twice a year, missing virtually no countries in his travels.

o sung wu,
I know exactly what you mean, my former boss could do that just from the money he wasted through his incompetence, courtesy Qld LG.
He could have given your D/Supt a run for his money.
Going back to the Laneway in the city of the black attire, when you have groups of people whose reputation precedes them, the property owners can be excused to feel threatened & who can blame them ? Public access or not, many crimes are perpetrated on public access so as without doubt prevention is preferable to cure, when a group assembles rather than simply pass , one is justified to feel threatened & asking the people to move on is not unreasonable, particularly when they instantly go on the defensive without reasonable questioning the request. To go into instant feigned indignation mode is simply just another form of aggression.

G'day there INDIVIDUAL...You're right. When a group of people usually those in their teens, and early twenties, loiter en masse, in a public place, whether their presence is perfectly legal, and they've no criminal intent, their mere appearance can prove menacing to many people.

Excasabated by their body language, their conversation, and attitude. All of which can prove quite alarming and can cause serious affront, for those people who have to pass by them. Hence the citation; 'give serious alarm and affront'. And It's not that easy for the coppers to prove the charge either?

Police must prove;

(i) 'the gathering though initial lawful,' does cause people 'ALARM' - 'of a kind that's of a serious nature; causing a genuine fear, unease, and apprehension.'

(ii) as well as an 'AFFRONT' - 'outrage, insulting behaviour, provocation' or similar.

The above is not meant as a law lecture INDIVIDUAL, just a brief illustration of some of the criminal 'Proofs' necessary to prove the offence of Serious Alarm & Affront. Of course, there are some variables to the crime.

One thing overlooked. The bloke is is paying for the security out of his own pocket, and people not liking it should probably get stuffed and mind their own business.

Hi there TTBN...

And that's about the size of it too; I reckon TTBN. Today, most people seem to have, little confidence in the police force. I suspect many citizens are of the belief the police are very much a political 'plaything' for the amusement of powerful politicians and their many acolytes?

By having someone close to a ranking copper, can prove useful, or so it was claimed. A case in point, I recalled a few years ago, there was a kerfuffle over Freemasonry, and allegations their members were being approached to gain an advantage, by associating with other Masons? All this was apparently 'teased out' by the electronic media. Suggesting there was a significant 'powerplay,' between the Masons and the Catholics within the Department. Like most things, it all tended to fizzle out and settle down, and nothing dramatic ever came of it.

In reality, my closest mate in the job had been a staunch Catholic all his life, and I'd been a Freemason since the early seventies. So much for this nonsense of simmering conflict, between Catholics & Masons. Any antipathy between the two had its origins within someone's, especially fertile imagination.

The bloke is is paying for the security out of his own pocket,
ttbn,
You'll find that he'd be writing his expenses off & as per usual it's us, the taxpayers who end up footing much of the bill.

Dear AC,

You wrote,

“But why are taxpayers winning his stupid prizes too?”

To be perfectly clear it isn't the taxpayer it is the insurer.

If it didn't happen in your state then it won't even impact your premiums.

So why the whinging?

O Sung Wu,

Many years ago (about 60) a mate of mine was posted to Lidcombe as a Probationary.
One of the first things that he was asked by the Crown was, was he a Catholic or a Mason.

He said to himself, that this was a bit rich, but answered: "Neither Sir, but why do you want to know?"; the answer was that the Masons and Catholics swapped shifts for their respective Annual Balls and they needed to know well beforehand to cover everyone, so he put himself down as a swap for either.

Hi, there IS MISE...

That's not too far from the truth I reckon IS MISE, both camps take their responsibilities quite seriously. The unofficial police Lodge in Sydney is Lodge MACKAY so named after the former Commissioner. A greatly revered man of his time, so I was told.

My 'Mother' Lodge was Lodge Long Bay, a Lodge peppered with a fair number of Prison Officers, and coppers as members. Whereas my Chapter, the 'Red', was 'Maroubra Royal Arch', very much the unofficial Chapter of the NSW Fire Brigade. Really welcoming, terrific blokes the 'Firies'!

How it worked for me, was purely convenience, very much closer to my home. Both the Blue Lodge and the Red were held in the same Masonic Temple. I attend neither now, as such I'm known as unattached (in good standing) for both. I do miss the fraternal atmosphere of Lodge nights, but I'm too old now to attend, which saddens me.

O Sung Wu,

Just as an aside, I had just come off the ferry at Cockatoo Island and was carrying a cased set of flintlock duelling pistols, their wooden case was inside a light protective black leather case, one of the blokes said: "Gee, I didn't know that you were in the Craft."

So I took him into the office and shewed him the "Regalia"; a bit of a surprise!

I've never been a Mason, though have had the honour of being offered a proposal a few times.

Hi IS MISE...

Somehow I reckon you would've made an excellent Mason IS MISE. There's nothing like being in the company of men, without all the bulldust that usually accompanies a group of blokes in a pub. You'd be surprised at the reach of Freemasonry too. Its right throughout the three armed services, mainly the Army and RAAF and to a lesser degree, the Navy.

Nor does it delineate between rich or poor, Christian or Jainism (Indian), just as long as you possess a liberal inclination, and believe in a supreme being, Masonry can be a great pastime for many men.

And not to be excluded, the wives never miss out either. They're an integral part of the Craft or Chapter. The only part where the ladies are excluded is the 'work' which is performed in the Temple, usually above.

A mere word of advice if I may IS MISE - Perhaps you might care to leave your dueling pistols at home, lest the Master of the Lodge mistakenly thinks there's a coup about to go down?

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/two-bodies-reportedly-found-in-townsville-stormwater-drain/news-story/757c61e3f558bedda68aefc9adffaea5

Sentenced by the real Judge ?