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.