Like Tree121Likes

Edward Leung get 6 years for being at the Mong Kok riot

Closed Thread
Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
  1. #141

    I don't know if the thug was triad, paid, or a non uniform cop. We can't have this happen of course in a civilised society. What the city should have done is to to state clearly the protestors have a limited time to express their views, perhaps a week and then will need to scatter. Beyond this set time limit then the cops will set off on horseback and batons, bulldozers, whatever like NYC or where ever. HK did not do this because of potential global criticism and the inevitable finger pointing and aha's due to the land up north. This was a mistake by the weak HK government not to lay down rules.We are not talking about the 3rd world where US backed secret police cut off children's arms.

    This protest which started out in one confined area did not draw the desired political effect so the organisers decided to spread out into multiple areas hoping to thin out police presence. In Mongkok the protestors were entering local shops occupying private space to disrupt normal business. When critized the response was hey you so selfish this is for democracy. The triad collect protection money from these shops and they do what they do.

    The plan was to create as much havoc as possible in many areas so police can no longer respond to those or any real emergency thus prompting a PLA presence much like the National Guard in the US are called in for the New Orlean riots. The PLA presence would have been a goldmine in propaganda value to the Dems and other groups. Of course the powers that be did not take the bait. Ultimately the organisers wanted a second 6/4 to take the issue as far as possible. Further violence would have targeted the PLA to in order to prompt this response,

    Last edited by jonastainine; 15-06-2018 at 12:39 PM.

  2. #142

    First question is....

    What was Gatts doing at an unlawful assembly?


  3. #143

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    First question is....

    What was Gatts doing at an unlawful assembly?
    Of course once again faced with first-hand accounts, facts or other arguments you can't find an excuse to refute, you resort to either to deflect the subject, yawn.

  4. #144

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Suggesting pro-authoritarians were rioting.
    Apologies I did not try to suggest they were rioting only that as the law appears to be written the executive branch could technically if they want to call it a riot.

    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Yes.
    If you do believe there is a fair and equal application of the law in Hong Kong it would seem further discussion on this point serves no purpose.

  5. #145

    Here's a case of applying the same laws.

    Pro-establishment supporters jailed for illegal protest under same rules that saw Nathan Law put behind bars | South China Morning Post

    Sorry, but I can't really support all of the conspiracies on here. Walking through town with megaphones at random shops and people who go about their day, even buses like the B3X is not peaceful protest. It's harassment and intimidation.


  6. #146

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,772

    Great article on the political bias involved in this case:

    https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/06/1...k-riot-trials/

    Also makes the same point I made earlier regarding the labelling of this clash as a "riot":

    Why ‘riot’ is, in this case, a loaded term
    The event to which these trials are related has been variously referred to as a ‘riot’, the ‘Fishball Revolution’, ‘clashes’ and ‘civil unrest’. I find ‘police-protester violence’ or ‘clashes’ to be the most appropriate terms.

    The term ‘riot’ was politicized by the Hong Kong government immediately after the event. It used this designation to stamp its definitive judgement on the event, to block calls for an independent inquiry into police actions on the night and to stigmatize the protesters, effectively declaring that the police were entirely in the right, the protesters entirely in the wrong.

    Riots occurred in Hong Kong in 1956, 1966 and 1967, and in each case the government conducted an inquiry and published a report. The government has refused to do so in relation to 2016. The term ‘riot’ was quickly adopted by pro-Communist Hong Kong media.

    ‘Riot’ is a specific offence in the Hong Kong Crimes Ordinance, and using the term may imply the view that those who participated are liable to prosecution for that offence. ‘Riot’ also has the connotation of out-of-control violence involving destruction of property, but in fact, virtually all of the protester violence targeted police.
    Mefisto likes this.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatts:
    Great article on the political bias involved in this case:

    https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/06/1...k-riot-trials/

    Also makes the same point I made earlier regarding the labelling of this clash as a "riot":
    A large segment of society agrees it's a riot, the government agrees it's a riot, a jury agrees it was a riot, even foreign news media talks of rioting (see description of images).

    https://qz.com/612813/hong-kongs-fis...t-street-food/

    But yes, let's retreat to the opinion section of HKFP for an "unbiased" echo for validation.

  8. #148

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    A large segment of society agrees it's a riot, the government agrees it's a riot, a jury agrees it was a riot, even foreign news media talks of rioting (see description of images).

    https://qz.com/612813/hong-kongs-fis...t-street-food/

    But yes, let's retreat to the opinion section of HKFP for an "unbiased" echo for validation.
    Oh yes, because any opinion deviating from the pro-government line is "biased". But please do elaborate on which points you disagree with.
    TheBrit and Mat like this.

  9. #149

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cramped island
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatts:
    Oh yes, because any opinion deviating from the pro-government line is "biased". But please do elaborate on which points you disagree with.
    so both sides are bias ? now what ? who is more bias than the other ?

    and remember, its the jury that convicted that guy, not the judge.

  10. #150

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by freeier:
    so both sides are bias ? now what ? who is more bias than the other ?

    and remember, its the jury that convicted that guy, not the judge.
    The difference with this article is that is well-funded article that takes it time to make its points and substantiate. Contrast this to a Alex Lo / Chugani rant in SCMP and you'll notice the difference.

    Now please, which points do you disagree with, and why?

Closed Thread
Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast