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 ?