Andrew Lam在上一篇留言給我這新聞的連結:
拒示學生證 保安報警 中大出位六子 百萬大道打麻將
大學是追求知識的地方，竟有學生公然開枱，攻打四方城！中文大學六名學生前日凌晨，在校園「百萬大道」附近科學館對出的空地打麻將，期間巡邏經過的保安員要求記錄他們的資料，他們拒絕提供學生證，保安員最終報警處理。中大發言人稱，保安員如對校園內人士的身份及活動有懷疑，有責任了解及查證。
《中大學生報》前日在fb專頁發帖，指周四凌晨零時四十五分，約六名中大學生在校園「百萬大道」附近、科學館對出空地打麻將。有保安員巡邏經過，要求記錄同學的學生證資料，以證明他們是中大學生，並稱會轉交保安處處長處理。學生一度拒絕提供學生證，保安員隨即報警。
報道指，期間涉事學生多次向保安員問及所違反的規則，但保安員只能以行為「不尋常」及違反指引作解釋，堅持要求記錄他們的學生證資料，並建議學生辦公時間內向保安組處長跟進，或向書院查詢有關章則。報道另引述學生稱，當晚活動不涉賭博性質，校方亦無任何條例明確禁止於校園內打麻將。
質疑無條例禁校園打牌
中大生命科學學院副教授陳竟明在其fb轉述有關消息，並寫道：「現在的學生，我行我素，自以為是，有些更喜歡欺凌學生！尤有甚者，大庭廣眾，粗口爛舌，外人來看，以為都是黑社會！」他又認為學生在百萬大道打麻將，是因「無聊的想要挑戰權威。」
教授歎息：學生我行我素
中大發言人表示，當時大學保安處人員發現有數名人士聚集於科學館對出的空地打麻將，在得悉他們為學生後，善意提醒他們在該處打麻將並不合適，有可能騷擾其他校園使用者。發言人強調，大學保安處的職責是保障校內師生的安全及校園活動的正常運作，如保安處人員對校園內人士的身份及活動有懷疑，有責任向其了解及查證，但未有回應校方有否規定校園內不准賭博。中大學生會會長周竪峰回應查詢，學生會沒就此事討論，因此不作回應。警方證實前日凌晨收到中大保安員報案，指學生不願展示證件而發生爭執，學生在警員到場前展示證件，遂列雜項處理。
(24/9/2016 頭條日報)
4. 每名學生均須接受香港中文大學的紀律管制。
(4. Each student shall be subject to the disciplinary control of the University.)
拒示學生證 保安報警 中大出位六子 百萬大道打麻將
大學是追求知識的地方，竟有學生公然開枱，攻打四方城！中文大學六名學生前日凌晨，在校園「百萬大道」附近科學館對出的空地打麻將，期間巡邏經過的保安員要求記錄他們的資料，他們拒絕提供學生證，保安員最終報警處理。中大發言人稱，保安員如對校園內人士的身份及活動有懷疑，有責任了解及查證。
《中大學生報》前日在fb專頁發帖，指周四凌晨零時四十五分，約六名中大學生在校園「百萬大道」附近、科學館對出空地打麻將。有保安員巡邏經過，要求記錄同學的學生證資料，以證明他們是中大學生，並稱會轉交保安處處長處理。學生一度拒絕提供學生證，保安員隨即報警。
報道指，期間涉事學生多次向保安員問及所違反的規則，但保安員只能以行為「不尋常」及違反指引作解釋，堅持要求記錄他們的學生證資料，並建議學生辦公時間內向保安組處長跟進，或向書院查詢有關章則。報道另引述學生稱，當晚活動不涉賭博性質，校方亦無任何條例明確禁止於校園內打麻將。
質疑無條例禁校園打牌
中大生命科學學院副教授陳竟明在其fb轉述有關消息，並寫道：「現在的學生，我行我素，自以為是，有些更喜歡欺凌學生！尤有甚者，大庭廣眾，粗口爛舌，外人來看，以為都是黑社會！」他又認為學生在百萬大道打麻將，是因「無聊的想要挑戰權威。」
教授歎息：學生我行我素
中大發言人表示，當時大學保安處人員發現有數名人士聚集於科學館對出的空地打麻將，在得悉他們為學生後，善意提醒他們在該處打麻將並不合適，有可能騷擾其他校園使用者。發言人強調，大學保安處的職責是保障校內師生的安全及校園活動的正常運作，如保安處人員對校園內人士的身份及活動有懷疑，有責任向其了解及查證，但未有回應校方有否規定校園內不准賭博。中大學生會會長周竪峰回應查詢，學生會沒就此事討論，因此不作回應。警方證實前日凌晨收到中大保安員報案，指學生不願展示證件而發生爭執，學生在警員到場前展示證件，遂列雜項處理。
我前些時批評大學生粗口爛舌, 有人說我離地, 自從林慧思在旺角向警察罵WTF之後, 撐她的教育界人士真不少, 我赫然發覺我的價值觀跟不上部份香港人了。到了最近, 有在大學工作的人留言告訴我, 單字的粗口在校園裏, 都成為不論男女的日常詞彙, 若然如此, 我就算不接受這種價值也得接受這事實。梁天琦連大法官馮驊的娘也給罵了, 我還可為甚麼是香港核心價值置喙嗎?
在校園公眾地方打雀論英雄, 蠻有趣啊。這算是佔中街頭攻打四方城、打邊爐的延續? 抑或是各出奇謀挑戰權威? 我佩服得五體投地, 創意由學生年代開始, 打牌增強思考, 防止老人癡呆。Oh! I beg your pardon. 應該叫認知障礙症。這些大學生高瞻遠矚, 潮語叫preemptive, 先發制人, 先下手為強, 先打麻將防止認知障礙。反正百萬大道夠寬敞, 不會對其他使用者造成障礙, 風涼水冷, 夠爽夠萌。
呢班友夠晒威, 無佢哋符? 我搜尋不到中大的校規, 但我記得大學可以對學生犯事記過, 但找了很久也找不到任何規管學生行為的規則。我為甚麼肯定有呢, 因為當年有個同學(後來做了立法會議員)在校內無牌駕駛綿羊仔給記了過。而且對學生採取紀律處分也有法理基礎。法例1109章《香港中文大學條例》(嘩! 可能你唔信, off hand我未進入雙語法例資料系統搜尋之前, 就對自己講: 中大條例好似1108章, 原來記少咗1章, 下次一定記得, 清一色九章包出銃, 記住百萬大道打麻雀呢單嘢, 實無錯)。撐遠咗, 太雀躍喇, 言歸正傳。《香港中文大學條例》附表一的「香港中文大學規程」(Statutes of The Chinese University of Hong Kong)規程25(4)這樣講:
(4. Each student shall be subject to the disciplinary control of the University.)
如果找到大學對學生行為規則, 上面這一條就是執行的法理依據。我暫時找不到, 無佢班小學雞符? 未必。衰喺我手, 我就用法例400章《噪音管制條例》第5(1)(c)條:
| 章： | 400  | 標題： | 《噪音管制條例》 | 憲報編號： | |
| 條： | 5 | 條文標題： | 任何時間的噪音 | 版本日期： | 30/06/1997 |
(1) 任何人於任何時間，在住用處所或公眾地方因進行以下活動而發出噪音，而該噪音對任何人而言是其煩擾的根源，即屬犯罪─
- (a) 奏玩或操作任何樂器或其他器具，包括唱機、錄音機、收音機或電視機；
(b) 使用揚聲器、傳聲筒或其他擴音裝置或器具；
(c) 進行任何遊戲或消遣活動；或
(d) 經營生意或業務。
大學屬公眾地方? 係喎。看下「公眾地方」(public place)在該條例的釋義(第2條)的介定:
“公眾地方”(public place)─
“公眾地方”(public place)─
- (a) 包括公眾可不分時段或分時段進入的碼頭、大道、街、路、里、巷、短巷、坊、水道、海灘、通道、小徑、通路、公園、郊野公園、公眾花園及任何其他地方，不論此等地方是否屬於政府或私人的財產； (由1998年第29號第105條修訂)
(b) 不包括任何為作以下用途而經營或使用的地方─
- (i) 任何形式的生意、業務、商務、技藝、專業、職業或為牟利而進行的其他活動；
(ii) 任何形式的會社，而其成立目的是為向社員提供社交或康樂設施的；或
(iii) 《公眾娛樂場所條例》(第172章)第2條所界定的任何公眾娛樂；
我去中大做保安你班友就無得寸嘴, 下次中大請保安通知聲我, 我同你講法理依據。
Hi Bill, please see if the "Procedures for Handling Student Disciplinary Cases" issued by CUHK's Senate Committee on Student Discipline are useful for your further consideration of the Mahjong incident. The link is -
回覆刪除http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/aqs/AQSHomepageIndex/phsdc.pdf
On a related note, I don't see any specific regulations governing the conduct of undergraduates/postgraduates but associate students -
https://rgsntl.rgs.cuhk.edu.hk/aqs_prd_applx/public/handbook/Default.aspx?id=1543&tv=T&lang=en
Cheers.
Wow, thanks. You follow me just like tailgating. Well, the exception only applies to Medical students who are governed by another set of rules. What can be applied in this mahjong case is 15.1(h) which says,
刪除"any conduct which is detrimental to the reputation and well-being of the University;"
It is the most relevant regulation applicable to the instant case. There is of course room for argument as to what constitutes the breach of this particular regulation. It is just a disgrace no matter what. When people have no respect for themselves, there is little you can do. When the morons feel they have every right (human right) to be idiots and this right overrides everything else, I can only sit back and sigh.
Out of touch
回覆刪除Touch what?有時我離地, 避免衰到貼地。
刪除無架喇,宜家係"我有我自由,我懶理你感受"的年代. 我唔識法律,講返自由. 羅秉祥n年前出過本書叫自由社會的道德底線,大致係以On Liberty為綱,再引用成書年代的例子去說明自由的限制,據說宜家係中學通識指定參考書云云,但宜家d靚仔點會睇書先得架,連本"狗血少年"都執笠啦......
回覆刪除倒是我教小學雞有關言論自由時都會用書中曾引述的例子:你有言論自由,但卻沒有在戲院內亂叫「火燭」的自由.
"校方亦無任何條例明確禁止於校園內打麻將" 即係同我D小學雞學生同一水平,我d"口舌便給"的學生常會說"校規無寫明不可XXXX." ^0^
八叔公字
有些人想在POLICE STATE的社會生活,沒有寫明不能做的事就大義凛然去做, 寫明不能做的事做了就是挑戰惡法, 有腦袋不表示有思考能力。小學鷄心智, 伴隨一世, 改不了。
刪除如何構成nuisance?
回覆刪除噪音管制條例用annoyance, 不是用nuisance.House of Lord (defined nuisance)in R v Rimmington [2005] 3 WLR 982 which held it to be committed when a person did an act not warranted by law, or omitted to discharge a legal duty, and the effect of the act or omission was to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise of rights common to everyone. It is easier to establish annoyance.
刪除For annoyance, read this case (para 13 and 14)
HCMA 1229/2004
刪除IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2004
(ON APPEAL FROM FLS 9237/2004)
____________
BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
and
WOO CARRIE Appellant
____________
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Wright in Court
Date of Hearing: 31 December 2004
Date of Judgment: 31 December 2004
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
1. The Appellant was convicted, after a trial during which she represented herself, as she does in these proceedings, of a single offence contrary to section 4(1) of the Noise Control Ordinance, Cap. 400. That section provides:
“ (1) Any person who between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., or at any time on a general holiday in any domestic premises or public place makes or causes to be made any noise which is a source of annoyance to any person commits an offence.
whilst subsection (3) provides for a penalty of a fine up to $10,000. For the purposes of this Ordinance an annoyance is such if the noise would not be tolerated by a reasonable person.”
2. The offence occurred in the early hours of the morning of 13 July 2004. The evidence which the Magistrate heard has all the hallmarks of a dispute between neighbours.
3. The first witness, the complainant and occupant of a residence situated some 12 feet away from the Appellant's residence, testified how she had been disturbed by loud music emanating from the Appellant's premises at around 9 p.m. on the evening of the 12 July 2004. After midnight, therefore into the morning of 13 July 2004, she still heard the music which was being played very loudly and which prevented her from sleeping. At this stage she made a report to the police. The police arrived and went to the Appellant's house. There was then a period of quiet.
4. Her evidence in this regard was supported by that of the fourth prosecution witness a police officer who confirmed that he had responded to the first complaint a little after midnight; that he had heard “a little bit” of loud music from the Appellant's residence; that he had seen and spoken to the Appellant telling her of the complaint about the music; that he warned her that if she did not moderate the volume she may be summonsed; and that, although the Appellant had not replied to him, she had turned down the volume of the music.
5. The period of quiet, however, was short lived. The first witness testified that between 2 and 3 a.m. she had seen the Appellant encourage her dogs to bark and then to stand on her own balcony shouting loudly about the fact of the earlier complaint to the police. Thereafter the Appellant went back inside her house and increased the volume of the music. As the first witness was disturbed by all of this noise she made a further report to the police at about 3 a.m..
刪除6. The second prosecution witness, another police officer, arrived shortly afterwards to investigate the complaint. His evidence was that at a distance of some 20 metres from the Appellant's residence he had seen her standing on the balcony and heard her shouting about the police being called. He described the music emanating from the Appellant's premises at that time as very loud. He kept observation for some 20 minutes during which the loud music and the Appellant's shouting continued.
7. He gained admission to the Appellant's house. He found her to be very emotional. He requested her to reduce the volume of the music, which she did. Because of the Appellant's emotional state a woman police officer, who gave evidence as the third prosecution witness, was called to the scene. She confirmed the Appellant's apparent emotional state and noted also that she was talking to herself. Because of this an ambulance was summoned. The Appellant refused to go to the hospital and also refused to produce any form of identification. Because of the latter refusal she was arrested. In due course she was summonsed for the present offence.
8. The Magistrate accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
9. The Appellant gave evidence in her own defence. She made complaint about the fact that the police had contacted her on numerous occasions in the past about noise emanating from the house: the Magistrate recorded that she disregarded the potential prejudicial effect of this complaint.
10. The Appellant said that she had tried to go to sleep at about 9 p.m. on 12 July 2004 but had been unable to do so. She had decided to do some work and listen to music as well as to drink some wine. She had fallen asleep but awoke later to find police in her room. This would have been the fourth prosecution witness who responded to the first complaint. She claimed that she "did not know what was going on" and "could not hear" what the police officer said, yet the police officer’s evidence that she had turned down the volume of the music at his request was unchallenged.
11. After his departure she drank more wine. She was distressed as result of the events, could not sleep and felt unable to breathe. At about 3 a.m. she went out on to her balcony and started talking to herself. The police thereafter arrived. She testified that she had refused to provide proof of her identity intentionally so that she would be arrested and charged: she told the Magistrate that she had followed this course of conduct so that she would be able to come to court to state her case.
12. The Appellant specifically denied having yelled out loud or having played music loudly. The Magistrate rejected the Appellant's evidence.
13. The Magistrate identified the fact that the issue was whether the noise, in the form of music and shouting by the Appellant, was made or caused by the Appellant such as to cause annoyance to the first witness. She did not need evidence of decibel levels or of a scientific nature: the issue is whether the noise caused annoyance, whatever its level. She was satisfied by the evidence of the first two prosecution witnesses, as she should have been, that the loud music and shouting were both caused by the Appellant.
刪除14. Such conduct at 3 a.m., was audible over a distance some five times further away from the Appellant's house and was sufficiently loud as to prevent the first prosecution witness from sleeping. There had been an earlier request by the police to moderate the noise which she was causing. The Magistrate was fully justified in finding the noise to be an annoyance in the sense contemplated by the Ordinance.
15. The Magistrate had the benefit of seeing and hearing the prosecution witnesses as well as the Appellant. She was entitled to find, as she did, that the prosecution witnesses were truthful and reliable. She was entitled to reject the Appellant's evidence. Having followed this course, she was entitled to make the factual findings upon which she based the conviction of the Appellant.
16. The Appellant was rightly convicted. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
(A R Wright)
Deputy High Court Judge
Mr WS Cheung, GC, for Respondent
Appellant, in person, present
標少，我絕無貶意，雖然你已經退左休，但你的用語與時下年輕人完全能接上，厲害！小弟見識少，剛成為標少札記的讀者，本以為從事法律界的人，說話雖能一語中的，但應大多語言乏味。相反，標少除左一語中的，還生動有趣，絕不沉悶！希望標少多出文，令小弟能學多一點。如把這篇BLOG轉到其他網上論壇，回响應不少，希望能引起年輕人對自己的行為需負的責任多一點注意。
回覆刪除我鍾意市井喎, 所以去到街市同販夫走卒相談甚歡, 博文是生活的寫照, 從不矯情虛偽, 所以用很貼地的語言。我不介意你把我的文轉到朋友處, 但我無閒暇同人筆戰, 所以從不去挑別人的機。不敢叫人學習甚麼, 只想引起討論讓自己學習別人的看法。
刪除我都鐘意市井的那種直話直說，這才能真正的交心。小弟不幸地試過做裝修行業，那些裝修佬，有個句講個句。在這個環境，少了裝模作樣，生活簡單d, 命都長d。
刪除起碼暢快。
刪除標少，請問有見到我的留言轉到SPAM嗎？ 我發佈了，但不見有顯示出來。
回覆刪除我不知blogger的spam用甚麼標準, 我時常會去看然後把留言抓出來。
刪除如果我篇文漢字+英文太混雜 就會被tossed into the bin
刪除阿大 星期一 元朗4義士判刑before Barnes J.
馬鹿
謝謝, 明天這判刑我記得。有時純中文也會去了SPAM.
刪除另外,我發現近期用chrome無法發佈,要用回萬惡的IE,我仲以為比bill少ban左.
刪除八叔公字
我無ban任何人。
刪除just kidding.
刪除八叔公字
現在既大學生知醜既咩?聚集係人潮過迫既公眾場所: 例如商場、mtr大聲叫口號，妄顧公德弄污公物、互相追逐推撞、嬉戲 喧嘩呢d係佢地迎新活動, 以前佢地迎新活動會租地方, 去郊區, 唔會影響到別人
回覆刪除作為大學生應尊重他人和為他人設想的重要性，學生不要在公眾場所舉行大型群體活動，自律守法
因為唔識醜唔怕醜所以唔知醜。
刪除"發覺我的價值觀跟不上部份香港人了"
回覆刪除Same here, for a long while already. Sigh.
BJ
Other than sighing, what else can we do?
刪除年輕人嘛。大了就可能笑說自己年輕人的無聊. 我哋年輕時都曾在實驗室煮公仔麵。實則上更他們在百萬大道打麻將分別不大。不過，保安要問佢哋學生證，這些是不可能反抗的。
回覆刪除我以前也試過在宿舍房中用炭爐打邊爐, 給舍監發覺會真心致歉, 沒有去公然挑戰甚麼, 你煮公仔麵也不會大鑼大鼓吧? 分別就在這裏。
刪除如果咁講,我果代比兩位更"狂野奔放",我們曾在男宿common room播放動作愛情片一起觀賞,但都深知寧比人知,莫比人見,這顯淺道理.
刪除八叔公字
知恥近乎勇
刪除相信新一代年輕人更敢於挑戰對錯，無論是法律上是否禁止、道德上是否不容。可能我們要多一些包容。是否法律上不容許，要證明百萬大道係公罪地方、構成annoyance, 就算證明了違法，他們亦可能去打紙麻將。公然挑戰權力不是現今generation Z 少見的。時代不同了。
回覆刪除Did they challenge the authority for a good cause? That is the ultimate question.
刪除https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/gettinggenz.com/2015/11/23/six-trends-among-generation-z-in-2016/amp/
刪除Article to share
I think they are ready to challenge the authority. Whether or not the challenge is with good cause begs the questions what good cause means, and whose standards apply in making such a judgment. I guess what they are trying to do is to demonstrate that the world does not operate according to your standards.
It will become a meaningless discussion. I do not judge applying a subjective standard. They can do a lot of things to demonstrate that the world does not operate according to a lot of people's standard. They can live in their own world too. They are stipulate their own rules if they buy a piece of land and form their own country. Why don't they cut their class, not hand in their assignment, not attending lecture and then challenge the authority for not awarding a degree to them? Should it be called Generation Z or Degeneration Z?
刪除When I said "your standards", I did not mean 標少's standards. I was thinking from the youth's perspectives. There are things that they know what is right and wrong, such as those examples mentioned by you.
刪除In the old days, we were more obedient probably because we trusted the authority and those with power. This is no longer the case now in Hong Kong. That could explain the behaviour and attitude of the youth. If they cannot trust anyone, what can they do to protect their own interests?
I think we should step into their shoes and think from their perspectives.
公然挑戰權力不是問題,問題係不願承擔挑戰的後果:"敢做不認是抗戰,掉了磚頭我即閃"的態度,敢膽係百萬大道打麻雀,無膽show student ID? 定係更經典既:"阿sir唔好拉我啦！" ^0^
刪除八叔公字
有膽做，當然要對後果負責，不出示學生證就難辭其咎。
刪除http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-era-in-hong-kong-is-ending-thanks-to-chinas-tight-embrace-1474647072
An article to share. 如今新一代年輕人，確實比我們那幾代人生活得痛苦和無奈，只好對他們多一些包容、多一些諒解吧。
If I stepped into their shoes, I still cannot understand why I should play mahjong there. Please enlighten me.
刪除我可以包容諒解, 但可否找個雀友出來解釋下半夜三更在百萬大道打麻的目的?
刪除They may want to know and challenge why they cannot play mahjong there. It is not a question whether they should play mahjong there. If there is no prohibition, they may have BBQ, hot pot gathering, etc, there. We may consider that those acts are meaningless and stupid, and they are doing the wrong things at the wrong places. I guess they would say who said that those acts are wrong - show us the laws and regulations - and who said that is not right to play mahjong there - we do not have to follow others' standards. I think playing mahjong there is simply to show that they can do what they want to do. If people disagree, then the people who disagree need to convince them.
刪除https://www.facebook.com/cuspcusp/
刪除可參考中大學生報
兄台,唔睇猶自可,一睇把鬼火:
刪除【百萬大道打麻雀系列：百萬大道乜活動都唔搞得（除了校方批准）】
就同學在百萬大道附近（該位置為百萬大道旁，樓梯對上，科學館前地）打麻雀被趕事件，學生報訪問過中大傳訊及公共關係處同事Pansy，了解同學在百萬大道（即林蔭大道）使用的權利。另外又向科學館管理辦公室了解科學館前地的使用規定。
█百萬大道舉辦活動 必先經校方申請
根據中大傳訊及公共關係處提供的資料，「借用烽火台」的借用須知文件提及，「林蔭大道不予外借，僅供大學舉行年度大型典禮及活動之用」。如果同學要在林蔭大道舉辦任何活動，都要在八星期前向傳訊及公共關係處申請，再交由行政事務委員會審批。因此，如果同學在林蔭大道舉行沒有事前申請的活動，都是違規。據學生報了解，平日不時有組織在林蔭大道進行多人活動，如排練和練Beat，恐怕亦會違反公共關係處的規定。
█到底活動會否阻礙他人，是否校方說了算？
原來舉辦活動外，同學在百萬大道上放置展板或枱，亦是違反傳訊及公共關係處的規定。Pansy指出，百萬大道作為校內的主要通道，亦是大學的標誌性的地方，「唔可以話擺就擺」。所以，一般學會和組織亦不可以在百萬大道上放攤位、書展，或甚至一張枱。同學作為校園的重要持分者，卻沒有辦法參與百萬大道使用規定的討論和決策，而是由校方單方面決定。到底活動會否阻礙他人，是否校方說了算？
█其實打麻雀同學位置不是百萬大道！
我們向校方了解，原來百萬大道尾段的樓梯及科學館前地，已是科學館的管轄範圍。而樓梯和科學館前地的使用申請則較百萬大道寬鬆，但仍要向科學館管理辦公室提交申請表。使用場地守則上亦對活動形式沒有太大限制，除了「有危險性的活動」和嘈吵的問題外，沒有其他規定。科學館管理辦公室關小姐表示，如果同學沒有預訂場地的話，在日間的辦公時間，職員見到會要求同學進行申請。但如果同學在晚上十時後，使用該地點進行活動，科學館管理辦公室的同事已經放工，就沒有辦法管理了。（所以，我們理解十點後，該地段便是由保安組管理了。那麼到底十點後在該處打麻雀有沒有違反任何規則？保安組在截稿仍未回覆編輯。）
不過，說到底，究竟以上的使用規則的制定過程，同學可否參與？同學作為重要的使用者，在空間的使用議題上，是否要讓校方說了算呢？
「麻雀事件」系列：
【百萬大道的可與不可——記同學在百萬大道上打麻雀被要求登記資料】
https://www.facebook.com/cuspcusp/photos/a.622653001128781.1073741828.503084439752305/1177184465675629/?type=3
【百萬大道打麻雀系列：百萬大道乜活動都唔搞得（除了校方批准）】
https://www.facebook.com/cuspcusp/photos/a.622653001128781.1073741828.503084439752305/1177732942287448/?type=3
"其實打麻雀同學位置不是百萬大道！" "那麼到底十點後在該處打麻雀有沒有違反任何規則？" 睇完真係連小學雞詭辯都講唔上,更唔好講果幾位打雀英雄有咩宏大抗爭理念.
八叔公字
香港冇一條法例詳細列明乜野時候可以做乜事，但我相信common sense prevails
刪除大學生明顯地連common sense都冇既話，佢地點有能力出社會做野？更加唔好話要成為社會下一代支柱啦
叫啲友食粒common sense丸, 食完就有sense屎囉。 梗係支柱啦, 打牌要四隻腳, 四平八穩。我做老細就唔敢請佢哋, 容乜易喺公司、學校開枱, 邊間公司同校規會講明唔准開枱? 只有麻雀館可以請佢哋, 只有嗰度先至唔使講都可以開枱。
刪除話時話, 百萬大道或者科學館有冇講唔准大小便, 校規都無寫喎, 就地囉。
我想請教下, 比小學雞再低一級叫乜?
刪除幼稚卵(音:leon5,勿錯讀 ^-^) 尚未孵化成小(學)雞也.
刪除八叔公字
你自創定係潮語先? 我未聽過。
刪除百分百原創,至少我google唔到 ^-^
刪除咁小學低一級是幼稚園,小雞未孵化是卵.
八叔公字
佩服。你收版權費囉, 用這詞語者每次繳交一卵給你, 你孵小雞, 然後可開鷄竇。
刪除蝦.......咪住先,再search一下,原來高登早幾年有人提過,仲有中學鴨(有d牽強):
刪除幼稚卵>小學雞>中學鴨>大學鵝>碩士鴕>博士鷹>研究鵰>教授猿(猿不是鳥類吧)
http://archive.hkgolden.com/view.aspx?message=3267851&page=3&highlight_id=0
八叔公字
咁你雞竇開唔成喇。
刪除哈哈，標少，容我為佢地作個理由。由於半夜三更在宿舍打麻雀會擾人清夢，所以只好另覓場地。百萬大道實屬半夜打雀的理想地方，四周無人，地方闊落，風涼水冷。
回覆刪除年輕人求新鮮感，刺激感，我完全明白。問題在於佢地用錯左選擇去滿足自己，更做錯左方法去面對自己的錯誤。相信這個只係少數人既問題，不需要拉到整個世代的問題。每個年代都有壞人和傑出的人吧。
我無意拉一代人落水, 只是回應留言講Gen Z而講得籠統了, 其實就算講兩傘的一代, 又可以有幾大代表性, 分分鐘又有港獨的一代。
刪除講到尾依家新一代香港學生太容易入大學，搞到佢地唔value個學位
回覆刪除小弟近幾年的觀察，最努力的學生係大陸落黎那批，畢業生後最容易揾到工都係佢地
有時我想起蝴蝶同螞蟻的故事，不幸地香港學生就係故事中的蝴蝶
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1N_qIqhR1WybOVa2yXPeHqrSRNWGsDHeT97e88QPXOWM/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=60000#slide=id.g16fb7d49f0_4_21
回覆刪除四眼搞社運女人懶人包
畀啲咁既嘢我睇, 我對佢一向都無好感喎。佢四圍泡妞我無興趣知喎。
刪除呢個版本太一面倒，本來“藍衣社”自己都有呢d事跡流傳。
刪除即使系又如何，天王同東南西北翼王爭女又好，爭食紅丸又好，都系人地家事~
http://tw.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160923/bkn-20160923160837399-0923_00822_001.html
回覆刪除唉。
在上一篇的留言評論了。
刪除無論喜歡或否，這是新世代。挑戰權力。你話佢冇common sense, 佢哋可能會反問你，呀叔，有幾common 先，你話common 就common 嗱。佢要同你講authority, 又點會講乜common sense, 都係嗰句，可以包容就包容，play to their strengths. 你可能退休了，現今年輕一代跟以往的不同的，出差去落後地方，話可能危險，唔去，一定要去就只好辭職; 同老闆講嘢，一面講一面抖腳又有。我想他們亦有新世代優勢的一面。
回覆刪除http://www.hk01.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/44770/%E6%89%93%E6%B3%A2-%E8%A7%80%E6%98%9F%E5%86%87%E5%95%8F%E9%A1%8C-%E6%A0%A1%E5%9C%92%E7%AB%B9%E6%88%B0%E7%9B%AE%E6%93%8A%E8%80%85-%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E8%A6%81%E6%B1%82%E4%BF%9D%E5%AE%89%E8%99%95%E9%95%B7%E4%BA%A4%E4%BB%A3
挑戰權威? 鬥牌章? 我上面咪講法理囉! 阿叔退咗休, 知識唔會退休喎。我個大女同女婿都係80後, 都在在投資銀行管理層工作, 入得去成績個個都有番咁上下, 新一代的工作態度使他們嘆息。我就話老餅啫, 佢哋在職場, 都有啲咁嘅睇法。對那些不知所謂的人要包容定係包庇? Why do we need to pamper them?
刪除匿名老兄,呢樣同退唔退休無咩關係.我有排都未有得退休,天天同呢d Y,Z,ZZ世代(gundam???)打交.......道.我都算係咁架喇,買埋本書學同佢溝通.
刪除但呢單野純屬無知(或曰硬膠),同挑戰權力或抗爭扯不上任何關係. 而後續果d咩""其實打麻雀同學位置不是百萬大道！" "那麼到底十點後在該處打麻雀有沒有違反任何規則？" 就絕對係幼稚卵抗辯,連小學雞都談不上.
做個Y世代超讚的上司
https://www.hkbookcity.com/showbook2.php?serial_no=265764
八叔公字
講開出差，依家新一批員工對出差既地點都有要求。個個都話要用日本分公司出差，一講要去bangalore 做野，班新人用盡理由唔肯去。又話怕危險又話怕俾人強姦。講真，去印度分公司有埋司機同同事全程跟住你，又點會咁容易有事？好多新一代連adventure 既精神都冇，點搞？話時話，之前有一個真係同我講話派佢去bangalore出差既話佢會辭職。結果可以係咁小弟應該辭左起碼十次職了。
刪除所以依家我見工既時候講明過probation 前一定要走轉Bangalore，唔想去既就唔好黎我地公司做。但咁樣又真係filter左好多麻煩友
與其話佢地唔識野,倒不如話佢地唔識抗逆...
刪除人人都自我中心,同人合作就話人跪低,叫佢地遵守規則就話做順民,總之唔合佢地心水的就要反對到底...
呢種心態,結果就成為政棍們控制的工具...這種所謂"叛逆"心裡,結果就造成特朗普都可以去選總統...
當年文革的年青人,個個都係話"造反有理","破舊立新",結果就成為毛派的洗腦工具...
依家果班本民前,熱普城.佢地咪又係用同一手法去達致政治目的...
同意。
刪除蘋果式洗腦，傷港電台吹噓出來的結果囉
刪除不斷懷舊,真係以為民主左係可以回復以前既生活
以為有理無理對抗權威係浪漫既事
不過無他既,反正仲有父母努力供養佢地
正正係佢哋要做自己喜歡做的事，你話唔合法或唔合規，佢哋咪同你講點解唔得。你講了法理，佢哋又可以講法律不是這樣詮釋的。80 後都已經老餅了。現實係gen z 剛開始出來做事，這是要面對的問題，不少文章亦有談及新一代人的問題。可以不用他們嗎？可以改變他們嗎？還是只得包容他們。
回覆刪除佢哋當然可以講法律不是這樣詮釋的, 正如我上一篇寫那個社運人士, 結果咪係釘咗囉, 去上訴都會駁回。我都知後浪會把我淹沒, 時代的改變無人能阻。但我就不會包容明顯是錯的態度。像那些犯了店舖盜竊寫給我求助的Gen Z, 我不厭其煩跟他們書信來往, 叫他們反思, 貫輸一些正確處事方法給他們,不會讓他們take for granted受到幫助, 而要他們學習怎樣去爭取, 我耐心聆聽, 但我不包庇。我就是要改變他們的態度。
刪除世界上總會有一批比較正常既Gen Z，佢地將會在職場上有好大優勢。你或者會問邊度會有？小弟在大陸二三線城市既大學就搵到一批，佢地雖然英文同technical skills冇北京上海既好，但係佢地真係有心學同有心做。小弟有信心5-10年後佢地可以委以重任
刪除香港近幾年既畢業生呢，唔好話小弟，連做HR manager既內子都話佢唔敢再請，之前請過既一批煩到佢死，依家佢寧願請40頭既好過
我個女及女婿都話唔會請本地新畢業的。
刪除上面有幾位常講包容包容，實在難聽過講粗口。要挑戰權力就要負責。別人揸正來做時，不要說別人迫害。
刪除TO C
刪除有乜計姐?
上晒電視話負責果堆人全部走數既
有晒案例仲唔有樣學樣?
仲懶係好浪漫好有獨立思考TIM~
最慘是被利用的人要負走數那班人的責。
刪除https://blog.shrm.org/workforce/gen-z-could-soon-pose-greater-hr-challenges
回覆刪除The above HR article talks about gen z's characteristics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-now-focused-on-gen-z-2015-12
可能一開始該幾名雀友純硬膠，中大報及報章都沒有直接訪問他們的動機。之後講什麼使用空間權，你講佢小學雞又好，佢哋要表述自己的意見，你都無辨法。只好睇本乜乜超讚的上司，去令自己明白他們的想法。此外， 法律呢d 嘢，個個都話自己啱. 佢哋實有不同的看法。
刪除標少，支持你在幫助求助青年時，灌輸正確處事態度。這個時候，應是他們最聽教聽話的時候！
回覆刪除想請教標少土地業權跟物業業權的分別，以及＜＜土地收回條例＞＞。
回覆刪除１。土地業權跟物業業權的分別
最近看橫洲發展。其中最大疑問為「欺善怕惡」（或先易後難）。
但今次受影響的橫洲三村大多數屬寮屋，而寮屋無合法「業權」。當中所指的「業權」，應是指物業業權對嗎？因全港除聖約翰教堂座落的那塊土地外，中華人民共和國擁有香港的全部土地。
如是者，相比橫洲棕地主要範圍由私人擁有以致談判賠償需時，政府先發展橫洲三村實在無可口非。
PS: 聽說「橫洲原本登記的寮屋是 20餘户，如今竟出現了 150餘户。那多出的 130户，不會是地霸租霸吧 」
當然，「摸底」令１７０００減至４０００則仍需查證。
２。＜＜土地收回條例＞＞
在今日城市論壇中姚金松炎指政府可引用＜＜土地收回條例＞＞收回橫洲棕地，並引用1994年政府收回將軍澳新豐鐵廠的案例，指政府無安置無賠足亦成功收回棕地。
想問雖然政府根據＜＜土地收回條例＞＞收回橫洲棕地，但這個較《土地（為重新發展而強制售賣）條例》更勁的條例應該不是隨便亂用對嗎？要不然市建局就不需費時多年才可以收樓，始終私有產業權也要被尊重……（雖然我覺得多數「苦主」也是獅子開大口……）
謝謝！
TL
註：
涉及今次橫洲公屋發展項目的永寧村、楊屋新村、鳳池村，正是朱凱迪等抗爭者口中的「非原居民村」。朱凱迪所屬的社運組織「土地正義聯盟」成員區國權早前亦已向傳媒證實，上述三村「大多數屬寮屋」。
http://speakout.hk/index.php/2013-11-04-09-33-03/2014-01-13-10-38-56/17438-2016-09-20-08-17-38
政府於一九八二年為全港的寮屋進行登記，獲登記的寮屋仍屬非 法 構 築 物 ， 只 是 “暫 准 存 在 ”直 至 自 然 流 失 ， 或 政 府 因 發 展 計劃 、 環 境 改 善 或 安 全 理 由 而 被 清 拆 。 “暫 准 存 在 ”並 不 是 賦 予 或承認任何人士佔用有關土地的權利或任何法律權利，並無合法業權。
http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/st/doc/2012_2015/common/committee_meetings_doc/dhc/3903/st_dhc_2014_051_tc.pdf
除聖約翰教堂座落的那塊土地外，中華人民共和國擁有香港的全部土地。香港特區行政長官有權租出或批出土地，給予公眾佔用一段時期（法律上稱為「批租土地」）。
http://www.hkclic.org/tc/topics/saleAndPurchaseOfProperty/basic_knowledge_of_land_ownership_in_hong_kong/
這些我一向沒有硏究, 不敢亂講。
刪除http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20160926/55694834
回覆刪除Is this contempt of court?
No, I am afraid. I will write a blog to explain why.
刪除http://topick.hket.com/article/1510250/被指「以胸襲警」%20吳麗英改判社會服務令
刪除正常嗎？
我也要寫一篇。
刪除we are contemplating appeal to the CFA
刪除馬鹿
Bravo! I am waiting to learn. You are doing pro bono again? On which limb? I can envisage you cannot get leave to appeal from Barnes J. If going to CFA, you have to show cause. Haha, peanut hulls are on my floor.
刪除I do not see any solid grounds myself. Got to peruse the judgment again later and offer my opinion to the team. I myself has always been pro bono.
刪除马鹿
Good to know your willingness to do pro bono to pursue social justice though you are always on the wrong side of the law. Still, it will not diminish my salutation to you. For this case, I would only say you waste your time.
刪除