- #21 [forestpig], 18-06-11 11:48
- #22 [ocisgood], 18-06-11 11:55樓價咁高, 搵食艱難, 各行各業, 都要爭取表現, 向當權的效忠, 即使係做仆街野!
- #23 [A_Nice_man], 18-06-11 12:00而家正苦做既, 根本就係 十個救火的少年 既情節
-
- #24 [lym], 18-06-11 12:03>咁平靜,點解?
有股有樓炒,有旅行去,邊個會理? 去下一次半次遊行已比足面。 - #25 [Matrixneo], 18-06-11 12:07法官想表達什麼,睇唔明
並舉例指倘若有一強姦犯,恃著事主啞忍再去強姦其他女子,如果法庭知道原來存在第一名沒有作聲的受害人,為何不應考慮這背景 - #26 [issac_chan], 18-06-11 12:08>咁平靜,點解?
得罪講句,對好多人來講,最離地的其實係本土派 - #27 [Matrixneo], 18-06-11 12:11講離地
777 ,劏房波,天下第一,
仲有富二代最離地
唔去日本旅行就買到樓
最後修改時間: 2018-06-11 12:11:20 - #28 [天富仔], 18-06-11 12:21好明顯是不考慮政治訴求為求情理由,卻考慮政治需要為判刑準則。
- #29 [ABC1234], 18-06-11 12:24其實當時如果唔擲磚唔放火燒車,結果會好唔同
===================================
共慘黨對異見份子即使一句說話都要重判即使家人朋友都唔會放過。
最後修改時間: 2018-06-11 12:25:54 - #30 [issac_chan], 18-06-11 12:34無論梁天琦,定係梁游DQ事件,定係鄭X泰,都似係網紅上TVB咁,響自己世界就天下無敵,一去到真實世界,就俾人當狗仔咁撚
以本土派標準,呢D就係標準鳩做
我十分同情任何被強權壓迫的人,呢件彭嬸咩料大家亦心照,但真係想講句,政治真係唔係咁簡單,佢地世界永遠就只係被壓迫-->革命-->奪權-->光復,任何唔同意見或想更深入討論點樣說服的人,就被打成港豬/行禮如儀/永續社運。呢D叫打機,唔係反抗,更唔係革命
梁呢兩年其實已經好似開始走出本土派的井底,同好多其他民派接觸,呢件係好事 - #31 [敗家仔], 18-06-11 12:39我隱隱感覺到梁梁游呢幾個人有d鬼鬼地
表面上佢地係受害者 - #32 [Bibi1031], 18-06-11 12:436年大重了⋯⋯日後要抗爭,一定要考慮實際環境,不要作無謂犧牲!
- #33 [668899], 18-06-11 12:43係689一野定性為暴動
係外國。呢類野常見 - #34 [ti], 18-06-11 12:47#31
判六年都鬼,要比幾多錢先肯坐六年!!!? - #35 [phcklee], 18-06-11 12:47梁游有d鬼鬼地 x 2
- #36 [H9713325], 18-06-11 13:14另一角度講,政府重擊呢班本土港獨勇武派,對傳統泛民未必係壞事丫。。。呢班激進派近年成日以攻擊温和派幾十年黎亳無建樹黎做政治本錢去擴張,白鴿黨果班畀人抽左咁耐水又無得反抗,啞子吃黃蓮;
今次洗一洗牌都好,大眾可以冷静落黎反思下廿年黎政治發展實情 - #37 [scriptwriter], 18-06-11 13:16>日後要抗爭,一定要考慮實際環境,不要作無謂犧牲!
實際環境就係做順民,啞忍不作聲就不用犧牲,亦符合沉默大多數的思維。 - #38 [issac_chan], 18-06-11 13:32Hong Kong Watch
2 hrs ·
Press Release : Lord Patten criticises Public Order Ordinance following sentencing of Edward Leung
On 11 June 2018, Edward Leung Tin-kei was sentenced to 6 years in jail for rioting. Lord Patten and other UK politicians expressed their concerns about the sentencing.
Edward Leung Tin-kei has been convicted of rioting under the Public Order Ordinance on the basis that an event is a riot if an ‘unlawful assembly’ leads to a ‘breach of the peace.’ The vague definitions of ‘unlawful assembly’ and ‘breach of the peace’, coupled with the extreme potential sentencing, has ensured that the law has been widely criticised.
In the 1990s, Lord Patten reformed the Public Order Ordinance to bring it in line with international standards, but the reforms were reversed by the ‘Provisional Legislative Council’ selected by the Chinese government in 1997.
Lord Patten of Barnes, the last Governor of Hong Kong, said:
‘We attempted to reform the Public Order Ordinance in the 1990s and made a number of changes because it was clear that the vague definitions in the legislation are open to abuse and do not conform with United Nations human rights standards. It is disappointing to see that the legislation is now being used politically to place extreme sentences on the pan-democrats and other activists.’
The United Nations have repeatedly highlighted that 'the Public Order Ordinance could be applied to restrict unduly enjoyment of the rights guaranteed in article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'.
Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, a leading barrister who led the UN trial of Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague and was previously the senior barrister member of the Bar Standards Board that regulates the barristers of England and Wales, expressed concerns about the use of extreme sentences as a deterrent. He said:
‘I met Edward in 2017 and was struck by his articulate, gentle, personable character as well as his youth. He is clearly a talented young man who has enormous potential if given a proper chance. I am quite unable to see that Edward’s actions warrant him spending formative years of his life in jail. The sentencing today, clearly designed as a deterrent to mute further protest, will not help this bright, able and penitent young man who deserves a second chance. It is easy to think that imprisonment in this case is simply unjustified. It may be seen as a mean but dangerous act by those in this delicate world who still believe in the values of democracy. Sentencing politically troublesome young men to achieve collateral objective rarely works and often backfires - in the end’
Edward Leung will face a retrial for another rioting charge for which he was previously acquitted.
His sentencing is the latest in a series of political trials against pro-democracy figures. Fiona Bruce MP, the Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, said:
‘Edward’s sentencing should not be seen in isolation. It is only one of many examples of the Hong Kong government using the law to intimidate the pro-democracy movement and curtail freedom of expression. It is shocking that one in three pro-democracy legislators and more than one hundred protestors have been prosecuted by the government since the Umbrella Movement of 2014. This is an unacceptable crackdown which has a chilling effect on the pro-democracy movement, forcing people into self-censorship and silencing opposition.’ - #39 [bliss33], 18-06-11 13:35有茅記得事發後早上隻梁狗話半夜已經通宵留意事件,已同班狗「會議」定性為「暴動」,即係話要用最嚴厲嘅法律手段去起訴,已經偏離事件中究竟客觀事實係咪合符「暴動」嘅入罪要素。尚有令人奇怪嘅就係梁狗向來新春離港渡假,而嗰年完全茅計劃,除咗搞呢件「暴動」
- #40 [300bguy], 18-06-11 13:38嬲到吾知講乜好。。。WTF!!!
- 下一頁 (2 of 20)
- 返回 ...
1, 香港人個個身驕肉貴,同67年只要工賊會話一聲有錢比就命都唔要好唔同
2, 太多新香港人仲係度講話抵死,擾亂公安,尋釁滋事
3, 對司法絕望,知道公安打壓,無可能打贏
共產狗真係除左等支爆都真係好難等天收