[GVGT] 反黑 OCTB
- Thread starter yperic
- Start date
mryang
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 156,966
- Reaction score
- 17,565
DoAsInfinity
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 666
- Reaction score
- 13
their youtube got problem? suddenly all video only 360p
Ya i also noticed sometimes change itself one
I just watch leh . Use cloud
http://www.kanxi.cc/yun/21223/015/
U dun know????
Watch episode 15 liao
Fiction character to remember ke Shou liang
gilcrest
Arch-Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,350
- Reaction score
- 5,853
You must be young, 柯受良 or Blackie Ko very famous in the acting and stunt scene. You would see him in most of the gangster flicks in the late 80s to 90s.Very memorable figure to many of us.
He's also the guy who flew over the Yellow river with his car in 1997.
Last time i saw him inside a car outside my sec sch
I tot i cock eye
Indeed,his daughter is from the same sec which feature in last time the 星期5周报
Yes.........
Ya, I noticed its only this morning then just changed. Last night I was watching episode 9 still can change to 1040. But now all down to 360 liaoz...
I just saw on their facebook. Apparently their youtube account was unknowingly banned late last night. They are still trying to resolve the technical issues, thus only 360 available
Those of you who yet to watch episode 9, can go to their facebook page to watch. The resolution is much better.
Btw guys. Since we are all fans. I know there are channels to watch faster than official youtube. But for benefits of those who don't have chance to watch, how about lets put spoiler alert when we are talking about spoilers? Putting ourselves in others shoes, we also dont like ppl anyhow give spoilers bah right?
I like this thread because there are many of us discussing the story and possible twists of the plot.
Last edited:
nomoreliaola
Arch-Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 11,231
- Reaction score
- 402
Hong Kong police quite fk up since 1950s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Police_Force
Police were criticised for violent attacked protesters in October 2014,[37] as well as for allegedly colluding with triads and thugs against peaceful protesters.[32][38][39] Seven police officers were suspended after a video tape surfaced of them beating a handcuffed protester in police custody on 15 October 2014, sparking outrage and accusations of police brutality.[40][41][42][43]
The seven officers were convicted and sentenced to two years in prison in early 2017. The police commissioner, pro-Beijing politicians, and thousands of members of the police unions steadfastly publicly supported and rallied around the convicted criminal officers.[44]
In December 2014, public satisfaction with the police had declined to 56% (from 62.3% five months earlier); its net satisfaction rate plunged to a record low of 29%, the lowest level since 1997 and lower than that of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. Pollsters drew the conclusion that the sharp decline was due to policing actions during the 2014 protests, and said that to repair its reputation, the police would need to "strengthen its professionalism in executing its duties, and also its affection and care for the society. It should not lean towards any political force, nor resort to improper means, just let political problems be resolved in political ways".[45]
Failure to prosecute a police superintendent for assault Edit
The Hong Kong Police came under fire for failing to charge police superintendent Franklin Chu King-wai, now retired, who was filmed hitting civilians with a police baton when uniformed officers were directing a line of passers-by to move along after a protest in Mong Kok on 26 November 2014.[46] The day before Chu was due to retire in July 2015, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) established by a majority decision that a complaint against Chu was justified. The internal Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) disagreed and sought legal advice from the Department of Justice.[47] Despite the seemingly incontrovertible evidence against Chu, the case remains pending without a prosecution in sight, raising concerns about the partiality of CAPO and the police force as a whole.
Misuse of care and protection orders Edit
In December 2014, the police caused concern when they applied for Care and Protection Orders (CPO) for two youths, one of whom was arrested during the protests.[48] Police arrested one 14-year-old male for contempt of court during the clearance of Mong Kok and applied for a CPO.[48][49] The CPO was cancelled four weeks later when the Department of Justice decided that they would not prosecute.[48] In a second case, a 14-year-old female who drew a chalk flower onto the Lennon Wall on 23 December 2014 was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, but was not charged. A magistrate decided in favour of a CPO pursuant to a police application, deeming it "safer". The incident created uproar as she was taken away from her hearing-impaired father, and was unable to go to school.[50][51][52] On 19 January, another magistrate rescinded the protection order for "Chalk Girl" after reviewing a report from a social worker.[53] The handling of the situation by the police raised concerns, as there was no explanation as to why the police failed to locate and consult a social worker before applying for the order in accordance with proper procedures.[54] Use of the device against minors involved in the Umbrella movement was seen as "white terror" to deter young people from protesting.[48]
False testimonies by police officers Edit
In April 2015, police reputation suffered a further blow when a student accused by a police officer of attacking him during the clearance of the Mong Kok occupation on 28 November 2014 was acquitted. In three written statements and during questioning at the witness stand, Constable Lau Kam-wing accused the defendant of approaching him from the front and hitting him in the mouth.[55][56] Video evidence submitted by an independent witness clearly showed that Lau was in a highly agitated state, and that the defendant was behind him and had not assaulted Lau.[56] Lau changed his testimony under questioning, and again in light of the video evidence. The judge observed that the case was "highly suspicious" and that the defendant had been falsely accused; he criticised Lau's wavering testimony and reproached him for being a dishonest and thus unreliable witness. The judge ordered the incident to be referred to the police complaints department, and asked to be kept informed of the progress of the investigation.[55][57]
Setup and framing of innocent autistic suspect Edit
In May 2015, a man was arrested, detained from 2–4 May for in excess of 48 hours and wrongfully accused of murder.[58] The man was autistic, and the police failure to handle such a case sparked controversy.[58][59] According to the police, the suspect made a written confession of an assault that contradicted severely with statements obtained whilst interviewed with family members. A nursing home later offered the suspect an alibi, corroborated with video evidence, that the man could not have been at the alleged crime scene.[59] Civil rights activists condemned the incident which traumatised a vulnerable individual, and criticised the police procedures including not proposing legal representation, lengthy detention, an methods for obtaining a bogus confession. The police chief expressed "regret" but refused to make an apology.[59] Also in May 2015, police procedures for conducting identity parades attracted controversy when suspects in an assault case on television reporters were allowed to wear shower caps and face masks during an identity parade, ostensibly to cover distinctive features, leading to the police abandoning the case due to insufficient evidence. The police stance was confirmed by the new Chief Commissioner.[60][61]
Revisionism Edit
In mid-September, media reported that the police had made material deletions from its website concerning "police history", in particular, the political cause and the identity of the groups responsible for the 1967 riots. Mention of communists and Maoists were expunged: for example, "Bombs were made in classrooms of left-wing schools and planted indiscriminately on the streets" became "Bombs were planted indiscriminately on the streets"; the fragment "waving aloft the Little Red Book and shouting slogans" disappeared, and an entire sentence criticising the hypocrisy of wealthy pro-China businessmen, the so-called "red fat cats" was deleted.[62][63] The editing gave rise to criticisms that it was being sanitised, to make it appear that the British colonial government, rather than leftists, were responsible. Stephen Lo, the new Commissioner of Police, said the content change of the official website was to simplify it for easier reading; Lo denied that there were any political motives, but his denials left critics unconvinced.[63][64]
In October 2015 the Police Public Relations Bureau launched a Facebook page in a bid to improve its public image. The page was immediately inundated with tens of thousands of critical comments, many asking why the seven officers who beat the handcuffed protester a year earlier had not been arrested. In response, the police held a press conference and warned of "criminal consequences" for online behaviour.[65]
Stolen bail money incident Edit
A police sergeant at the Wan Chai Police Station allegedly absconded on 1 May 2016 with HK$1.07 million (US$140,000) in bail funds. A man remanded on bail who reported to the station on 25 May claimed that an officer told him that the police could not be held liable for the missing money, and made him sign a waiver of claims in relation to the bail money he had posted previously.[46][66] Although police public relations quickly apologised for the "misunderstanding" that had occurred at the Wan Chai station, media criticised top management for being equivocal and evasive about the accountability of the station and also about whether the police officers responsible for the waiver response would be disciplined.[46]
Police gathering in support of convicted officers Edit
On 22 February 2017, more than 30,000 persons, including off-duty and former police officers, their family members as well as prominent Hong Kong society members such as former Secretary for Security and former Hong Kong Chief Executive candidate Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, National People’s Congress deputy Maria Tam and legislators Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Elizabeth Quat and Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, gathered at the Police Sports and Recreation Club in Mong Kok to express their sympathy for seven police officers who had been convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang, whom they had earlier arrested (and who was subsequently convicted) for assaulting police. Many observers condemned this as an illegal gathering as the organisers allegedly did not submit formal notice for this public gathering, as requited under Hong Kong's Public Order Ordinance. Some observers claim the gathering and its purpose was unethical as it implied endorsing the use of unlawful or excessive force against arrested persons; and that it improperly supported the actions of the convicted officers while suggesting contempt for the judicial decisions prompting their conviction and sentencing. Rather than disrespecting the judicial decision, other observers assert that the gathering's purpose was to show support for the convicted officers' families while expressing police frustration for being the focus of excessive verbal assaults and abusive insults when maintaining public order during the Umbrella Movement protests of 2014. One officer at the gathering was quoted as saying, “It is a deep and heartfelt expression of genuine support for our colleagues and their families, who we feel have been unfairly treated and whose actions came out of a time of highly charged political emotion and stress.” No matter the divergent points of view, the gathering albeit controversial, was conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner. [67]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Police_Force
Police were criticised for violent attacked protesters in October 2014,[37] as well as for allegedly colluding with triads and thugs against peaceful protesters.[32][38][39] Seven police officers were suspended after a video tape surfaced of them beating a handcuffed protester in police custody on 15 October 2014, sparking outrage and accusations of police brutality.[40][41][42][43]
The seven officers were convicted and sentenced to two years in prison in early 2017. The police commissioner, pro-Beijing politicians, and thousands of members of the police unions steadfastly publicly supported and rallied around the convicted criminal officers.[44]
In December 2014, public satisfaction with the police had declined to 56% (from 62.3% five months earlier); its net satisfaction rate plunged to a record low of 29%, the lowest level since 1997 and lower than that of the PLA Hong Kong Garrison. Pollsters drew the conclusion that the sharp decline was due to policing actions during the 2014 protests, and said that to repair its reputation, the police would need to "strengthen its professionalism in executing its duties, and also its affection and care for the society. It should not lean towards any political force, nor resort to improper means, just let political problems be resolved in political ways".[45]
Failure to prosecute a police superintendent for assault Edit
The Hong Kong Police came under fire for failing to charge police superintendent Franklin Chu King-wai, now retired, who was filmed hitting civilians with a police baton when uniformed officers were directing a line of passers-by to move along after a protest in Mong Kok on 26 November 2014.[46] The day before Chu was due to retire in July 2015, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) established by a majority decision that a complaint against Chu was justified. The internal Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) disagreed and sought legal advice from the Department of Justice.[47] Despite the seemingly incontrovertible evidence against Chu, the case remains pending without a prosecution in sight, raising concerns about the partiality of CAPO and the police force as a whole.
Misuse of care and protection orders Edit
In December 2014, the police caused concern when they applied for Care and Protection Orders (CPO) for two youths, one of whom was arrested during the protests.[48] Police arrested one 14-year-old male for contempt of court during the clearance of Mong Kok and applied for a CPO.[48][49] The CPO was cancelled four weeks later when the Department of Justice decided that they would not prosecute.[48] In a second case, a 14-year-old female who drew a chalk flower onto the Lennon Wall on 23 December 2014 was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, but was not charged. A magistrate decided in favour of a CPO pursuant to a police application, deeming it "safer". The incident created uproar as she was taken away from her hearing-impaired father, and was unable to go to school.[50][51][52] On 19 January, another magistrate rescinded the protection order for "Chalk Girl" after reviewing a report from a social worker.[53] The handling of the situation by the police raised concerns, as there was no explanation as to why the police failed to locate and consult a social worker before applying for the order in accordance with proper procedures.[54] Use of the device against minors involved in the Umbrella movement was seen as "white terror" to deter young people from protesting.[48]
False testimonies by police officers Edit
In April 2015, police reputation suffered a further blow when a student accused by a police officer of attacking him during the clearance of the Mong Kok occupation on 28 November 2014 was acquitted. In three written statements and during questioning at the witness stand, Constable Lau Kam-wing accused the defendant of approaching him from the front and hitting him in the mouth.[55][56] Video evidence submitted by an independent witness clearly showed that Lau was in a highly agitated state, and that the defendant was behind him and had not assaulted Lau.[56] Lau changed his testimony under questioning, and again in light of the video evidence. The judge observed that the case was "highly suspicious" and that the defendant had been falsely accused; he criticised Lau's wavering testimony and reproached him for being a dishonest and thus unreliable witness. The judge ordered the incident to be referred to the police complaints department, and asked to be kept informed of the progress of the investigation.[55][57]
Setup and framing of innocent autistic suspect Edit
In May 2015, a man was arrested, detained from 2–4 May for in excess of 48 hours and wrongfully accused of murder.[58] The man was autistic, and the police failure to handle such a case sparked controversy.[58][59] According to the police, the suspect made a written confession of an assault that contradicted severely with statements obtained whilst interviewed with family members. A nursing home later offered the suspect an alibi, corroborated with video evidence, that the man could not have been at the alleged crime scene.[59] Civil rights activists condemned the incident which traumatised a vulnerable individual, and criticised the police procedures including not proposing legal representation, lengthy detention, an methods for obtaining a bogus confession. The police chief expressed "regret" but refused to make an apology.[59] Also in May 2015, police procedures for conducting identity parades attracted controversy when suspects in an assault case on television reporters were allowed to wear shower caps and face masks during an identity parade, ostensibly to cover distinctive features, leading to the police abandoning the case due to insufficient evidence. The police stance was confirmed by the new Chief Commissioner.[60][61]
Revisionism Edit
In mid-September, media reported that the police had made material deletions from its website concerning "police history", in particular, the political cause and the identity of the groups responsible for the 1967 riots. Mention of communists and Maoists were expunged: for example, "Bombs were made in classrooms of left-wing schools and planted indiscriminately on the streets" became "Bombs were planted indiscriminately on the streets"; the fragment "waving aloft the Little Red Book and shouting slogans" disappeared, and an entire sentence criticising the hypocrisy of wealthy pro-China businessmen, the so-called "red fat cats" was deleted.[62][63] The editing gave rise to criticisms that it was being sanitised, to make it appear that the British colonial government, rather than leftists, were responsible. Stephen Lo, the new Commissioner of Police, said the content change of the official website was to simplify it for easier reading; Lo denied that there were any political motives, but his denials left critics unconvinced.[63][64]
In October 2015 the Police Public Relations Bureau launched a Facebook page in a bid to improve its public image. The page was immediately inundated with tens of thousands of critical comments, many asking why the seven officers who beat the handcuffed protester a year earlier had not been arrested. In response, the police held a press conference and warned of "criminal consequences" for online behaviour.[65]
Stolen bail money incident Edit
A police sergeant at the Wan Chai Police Station allegedly absconded on 1 May 2016 with HK$1.07 million (US$140,000) in bail funds. A man remanded on bail who reported to the station on 25 May claimed that an officer told him that the police could not be held liable for the missing money, and made him sign a waiver of claims in relation to the bail money he had posted previously.[46][66] Although police public relations quickly apologised for the "misunderstanding" that had occurred at the Wan Chai station, media criticised top management for being equivocal and evasive about the accountability of the station and also about whether the police officers responsible for the waiver response would be disciplined.[46]
Police gathering in support of convicted officers Edit
On 22 February 2017, more than 30,000 persons, including off-duty and former police officers, their family members as well as prominent Hong Kong society members such as former Secretary for Security and former Hong Kong Chief Executive candidate Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, National People’s Congress deputy Maria Tam and legislators Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Elizabeth Quat and Junius Ho Kwan-yiu, gathered at the Police Sports and Recreation Club in Mong Kok to express their sympathy for seven police officers who had been convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang, whom they had earlier arrested (and who was subsequently convicted) for assaulting police. Many observers condemned this as an illegal gathering as the organisers allegedly did not submit formal notice for this public gathering, as requited under Hong Kong's Public Order Ordinance. Some observers claim the gathering and its purpose was unethical as it implied endorsing the use of unlawful or excessive force against arrested persons; and that it improperly supported the actions of the convicted officers while suggesting contempt for the judicial decisions prompting their conviction and sentencing. Rather than disrespecting the judicial decision, other observers assert that the gathering's purpose was to show support for the convicted officers' families while expressing police frustration for being the focus of excessive verbal assaults and abusive insults when maintaining public order during the Umbrella Movement protests of 2014. One officer at the gathering was quoted as saying, “It is a deep and heartfelt expression of genuine support for our colleagues and their families, who we feel have been unfairly treated and whose actions came out of a time of highly charged political emotion and stress.” No matter the divergent points of view, the gathering albeit controversial, was conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner. [67]
http://www.kanxi.cc/yun/21223/015/
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.
Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
