【明報專訊】「香港人優先」數名成員前日手持港英旗幟闖入中環軍營，聲稱反映不滿政府計劃將中環新海濱部分用地興建軍用碼頭，隨後被持槍軍人驅逐離開。解放軍駐港部隊新聞發言人回應，相關4名市民不顧軍營哨兵警告，強行闖入中環軍營，涉違反駐軍法等法律，已報案交警方處理。警方回應證實，昨已收到駐軍報案，會按既定程序處理。
指違駐軍法公安條例
中通社昨引述，解放軍駐港部隊新聞發言人重申，中環軍營是香港法律規定的軍事禁區，有關人等行為涉嫌違反駐軍法、公安條例、受保護地方條例等法律。發言人重申，未經港駐軍最高指揮官或其授權的軍官批准，本港駐軍以外人員和車輛等不得進入軍事禁區，軍事禁區警衛人員有權依法制止擅自進入軍事禁區者。
「香港人優先」﹕預了會報警
香港人優先成員招顯聰回應稱，已預了對方（解放軍）會報警，只是沒想過他們會這麼快行動，認為解放軍是要令他在元旦遊行前被捕，避免他再闖軍營。
(28/12/2013明報)闖入中環軍營究竟犯了甚麽法？
首先，我真的不明白這4位仁兄要宣示甚麽，體現那種權力？解放軍當時可依據香港法例文件A403 ——1997年全國性法律公布（第2號）的《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區駐軍法》執行職務，解放軍依據該法第12條制止示威者未得許可進入軍事禁區，但違反駐軍法卻不構成罪行。要檢控這4個人，只可依赖《公安條例》第38條(1)(a)。法例這樣寫：
| 章： | 245  | 標題： | 《公安條例》 | 憲報編號： | E.R. 1 of 2013 |
| 條： | 38 | 條文標題： | 禁止無許可證出入禁區 | 版本日期： | 25/04/2013 |
(1) 除第(2)款另有規定外，任何人─
- (a) 如非根據並按照根據第37條所發的許可證進入或離開禁區；或
(b) 違反規限該許可證的任何條件，
第2級罰款即5000元。除了制止示威者闖入，守衛也可以將他們逮捕，然後盡快交給警方處理，《公安條例》第39條這様寫：
| 章： | 245 | 標題： | 《公安條例》 | 憲報編號： | 2 of 2012 |
| 條： | 39 | 條文標題： | 逮捕權 | 版本日期： | 17/02/2012 |
(1) 在不損害本條例或任何其他法律的條文的原則下，任何守衞員可將下列的人逮捕，並可為該目的而使用所需的武力─ (由2012年第2號第3條修訂)
- (a) 任何被他發現在禁區內的人，而該人是他有理由懷疑已犯或將犯任何罪行者；
(b) 任何被他發現正在禁區內犯罪的人；
(c) 任何被他發現正企圖進入禁區的人，而該人是他有理由懷疑並無根據本部規定獲准或獲授權進入禁區者。 (由1983年第33號第4條代替)
(由1970年第31號第24條代替)
(2) 根據第(1)款被逮捕的任何人，須在切實可行範圍內盡快交由警務人員羈押。可能當時守門口的解放軍不懂反應，只驅逐而不逮捕，下一次可能沒這様便宜了。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20131226/52029747
回覆刪除短片中
"香港人優先成員招顯聰（Billy）表示，今次只是行動第一波，「突襲」解放軍總部用意是克服港人心魔，明確表態港人反對興建軍用碼頭，也是為元旦日遊行作熱身，此後會陸續進行遊擊快閃行動。"
我估他們當時笑笑口, 可能守衛不覺有攻擊勢, KKC
真的可克服甚麽心魔？打愛字頭的妖魔一身仲過癮喇，叫林慧思掌嘴也不錯，叫那些暴發或窮鬼同胞滾回去又如何？心理平衡一點，對別人包容一點，心魔就消弭於無形。不能下下罔顧法紀，然後大條道理，法治始終都有「法」這框架，否則法治社會就不能維持了。
回覆刪除嘩, 標少你呢的唔算係溫馨提示播. KKC
刪除不是溫馨提示，只道出心魔。最終的提示是要守法，不能隨心所欲，否則社會亂作一團，那一條法例你看不順眼就挑戰一下，遭檢控就指責是政治逼害，把你定罪的都是狗官。法治不是自助餐，你喜歡吃甚麽就吃甚麽，法治是一劑混合藥苗，打針的時候會痛，藥苗提供了一定的保障，卻並非萬靈丹。我用上一大堆「你」字，卻不是指你。
刪除有些人被打針後覺得痛，便罵診所的護士。很多港人似乎以為，藥苗既然是對人好，為何會痛？他們以為藥苗是糖果。
刪除上次的判決，很多人都一直不能釋懷。在香港這樣的局勢，這樣的裁決可以說得上是來得不合時，相信很影響法律在港人心中的地位。他們指責法官和基本法，但連判辭大意也沒有了解過，基本上只差在未說「我說的便是法律」。
又是軍用碼頭，一號泊位本來在填海前就存在（就是回歸前不列顛尼亞皇家游艇與hms Chatham 護衛艦停泊的泊位加直升機場，況且這是94年中英軍方的協議，政府亦承諾填海後起回一個新泊位，更重要的是原一號泊位的佔地（也是軍事用地）佔地本來就比今天新泊位大的多……也說，這班人別跑出來亂代表香港人！
回覆刪除Do you mean this one?
刪除http://www.flickr.com/photos/darylchapman/6206538506/
(From Daryl Chapman's photo collection)
While it was a military berth, the place was always opened to the public even when the navy ships arrived and there were little to no cordon. It was a good place to have lunch and from 12 to around 4 people from offices around there always went there to have some sunshine and fresh air.
Just one simple question, can the PLA open the place like the Brits? The place is currently surrounded by barbed wire/fences and walls, which is quite different from what the Brits did before.
The question is simple but the answer is not. The communists have to open their mind before opening anything else.
刪除匿名先生:
刪除公園是在泊位隔鄰, 不是泊位範圍, 泊位範圍/直升機場還是有圍欄, 有人守衛, 閒人免進.....
留意下圖
http://www.assetstorage.co.uk/AssetStorageService.svc/GetImageFriendly/721245775/700/700/0/0/1/80/ResizeBestFit/0/PressAssociation/3D4AD43ADD7CAA001BC64B7EFF22ED82/the-royal-yacht-britannia.jpg
另外, 老解已承諾無船泊時開放空間......
此留言已被作者移除。
刪除William
刪除Wrong, the park is within the berth area also, which is much larger than then heliport in your photo, which is being fenced not because of military use, but due to flight safety for both government and civilian helicopters. If the Brits' berth got no open area the PLA won't be forced to provide an open area also.
Have a look at the current place now, and you can see the place is being fenced and walled. What an open area...
更正確的說, 皇家游艇泊的才是正式的一號泊位, 而由於泊位不夠長, HMS CHATHAM是要被迫泊在公園範圍.......
刪除http://cdn1.vtourist.com/4/6757516-Brithish_navy_vessel_Hong_Kong.jpg?version=2
小弟當年只是初中生, 還是要隔著圍欄拍游艇......
另外, 當時一號泊位兼用作直升機坪, 如果開放的話, 萬一正午時有直升機要降落......
Still wrong. Both the heliport and the park are the military berth area. As I have mentioned before, if there are no open area during the British era, the PLA will not be forced to do the same also.
刪除Seriously I wonder if you have been to there during that era. The choppers (both RHKGFS and Sea King from Royal Navy) were still able to use that landing pad when the Royal Yatch was being parked in there.
留意我第一張照片中, 遊艇所在位置是有繫泊的泊岸設施的.
刪除HMS CHATHAM是早於遊艇, 在當年6月初已到達, 最初就是泊在遊艇所在位置, 之後因為遊艇到達, 才讓出泊位泊到公園去......
Have a look at the current place now, and you can see the place is being fenced and walled. What an open area...
刪除早前去過看圍欄, 圍欄是可打開的那種, 並不是鎖死.
有兩張圖可反映公園是否正式泊位:
刪除https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/hMWtlyJNTWc/hqdefault.jpg
http://home.netvigator.com/~tlyons/brittlg.jpg
若果是正式泊位, 就不需要找兩個浮躉做靠岸設施......
Of course some of the fences can be opened, otherwise how can people get in?
刪除The park itself was a proper berth, with tie-down points and no concrete barriers in some area, which was extremely similar to this one in TST:
https://maps.google.com.hk/maps?hl=zh-TW&ll=22.295807,114.176745&spn=0.00173,0.00327&t=h&z=19&brcurrent=3,0x340400ef9f4f5e2d:0x3e17b67c7d004ff2,1,0x3404009533f68457:0x7af391a82a888312&layer=c&cbll=22.295807,114.176745&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-21788225
The barges are mainly for waste and water storage, as the vessel will need to park there for a long period.
Still, would you mind to elaborate more on your point about vessels affect helicopter operation during that period? Thanks.
現時軍用泊位的左右側圍欄亦是可打開式, 不只正門可開.
刪除Still, would you mind to elaborate more on your point about vessels affect helicopter operation during that period? Thanks.
可能你誤會我在說什麼, 我是指一號泊位(圍欄中的)當時兼作直升機坪, 如果平時也是開放給民眾的話, 會阻著直升機升降. 至於會否受在泊船艦干擾, 肯定不會, 因為當年拍船時正好有架海王降落在直升機坪.
另外, 公園那邊只有幾個小型的繫泊設施, 最多只能讓交通艇上落客(而這種繫泊設施維港兩岸多的是, 故公園似乎不是軍用泊位), 但相對地, 直升機坪那邊的泊岸設施就完善很多, 可容納更大型的軍艦泊岸.故我才認為正式的軍用泊位是在直升機坪那邊.
另外, 最好有當時的規劃圖, 否則根本就證實不了我們的說法究竟誰對誰錯.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/89154377@N02/8850989957/in/photostream/
刪除補充一下, 泊位旁的凹陷處其實是大型繫泊柱. 無論大小與數量都比公園那邊多.
The point is no gates in the park within the berth area versus gates/fences within the whole new berth area, it's simple.
刪除Another questions is very simple. All proper active aviation facilities in Hong Kong normally are guarded and fenced for aviation safety and security, with a large metal board clearly stating the place was secured under the aviation laws in Hong Kong.
However there are exceptions also, like the the first GFS Open Day in 1998. The west side helipads were opened for public while the east side helipad was being cordoned to maintain normal helicopter service.
I think the point should be: Is the park the berth area or not. As the parking facilities besides the heliport are much better, I pefer the latter one.
刪除Also, if all the gates/fences can be opened, it can easily become open areas and I do not think that it has any contradiction to the PLA's promise......
Talking about the old photos
刪除http://www.sfk.com.hk/en/civil/construction/c_proj.php
Although the photo is a bit small, you can see the same type of holes along the whole seawall of the park area (those in front of POW Building), which was for ocean going vessel tie-down.
For the original plan in 1997, have a look at this, not a good one but can provide you a rough idea
http://www.flickr.com/photos/89154377@N02/8684572737/
For the first photo, the "holes" seemed even bigger but with stairs, it may be someone like this:
刪除http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHwdJsIMZ32-R5hl69XMNwRiZEYlArCe1wXX0AUeqNTRi8dOFnVWT8mREY
Just for the landing of passengers from "交通艇"......
For the second photo, the idea is not so clear, but as small boat was shown on the billboard, it may be an area for "交通艇" berthing and landing passengers.......
For the first photo, there are four sets of holes, but there are no such stairs in the area at all.
刪除Ocean going or not, let's have a look at the SFK's project description again
http://www.sfk.com.hk/en/civil/construction/c_proj.php
"The project works also included the re-provisioning of Navy ferry landing facility, .............."
So both of us could be correct, the place could be for ferry(transport boats) for the navy.
我建議他們去北韓闖軍事用地。
回覆刪除順帶一提，如果解放軍沒有受到生命威脅而親身拘捕那些闖軍營的人，是很不智的做法，處理不好會損害軍方形象；正確做法真的是找警察。西方國家設在城市中的軍事設施一般都會有SOP, standard operating procedures，會告訴有守衛任務的士兵對這種問題應怎樣處理，制止人闖入同時去找警察是正常的做法。
回覆刪除這種事先宣揚的人驅走了之後報警當然可以在之後採取拘捕，否則，驅走了入闖的人，霅察來到人已去如黃鶴。只要守衛在逮捕時沒有過份使用武力，並立即交警方處理，我不覺得有何不妥。在英治時代如果有人拿5星旗去闖軍營，守衛逮捕他們，我也不覺得有何不妥。
回覆刪除當然沒有不妥，祇是說軍方考慮到其他問題，會發出SOP告訴士兵怎樣做，而由警察處理對軍方來説是最保險的方法，因此會成爲SOP中的規則。士兵辦事是依據SOP，而制定SOP的是指揮官；如果SOP説明是找警察處理，而士兵擅自拘捕闖入者，就算士兵的行爲合法也可以受到軍法的懲罰。亦即是說，守門的解放軍不拘捕闖入者應該是考慮之中，並不一定是不懂。
刪除這我不爭論，尤其是涉及駐軍問題，始終不是香港本身的軍隊，要有政治考慮，如果有多幾單同類事，不知是否要派警員在軍營外站岡。
刪除「只是沒想過他們會這麼快行動，認為解放軍是要令他在元旦遊行前被捕，避免他再闖軍營」聽上去可笑，他是覺得對方會待個幾天才報警？而且我不知道這呼叫幾下「解放軍撤出香港」的口號有甚麼用，就算他率領一萬個平民，甚至購入的士兵闖進去，解放軍也不會撤出。若他們真心策劃政變，也許我還更欣賞。
回覆刪除大陸佬笑他們做show，那也確是事實。香港沒有獨立條件也不講了，拿英國旗去揮舞，除了江郎才盡，無有其他招數可再使出來，還有其他伎倆嗎？
回覆刪除