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).