2017年7月12日星期三

掃把星

以下是今天看到一篇上訴判辭的案情描述:

2. 受害人林女士是大環山游泳池清潔工人。林女士和同事黎女士在2016年7月9日下午約5時15分,趁游泳池5時至5時30分的清場時間,在游泳池女更衣室內用膳。

3. 期間,上訴人在游泳完畢後利用更衣室內的一部「吹地機」的風口來吹乾頭髮,導致水滴飄到坐在吹風機附近的林女士的飯盒內。

4. 林女士於是對上訴人說「靚女,我哋食緊飯,你頭髮啲水fling到我哋啲飯盒」「阿姐,你啲水吹過嚟我哋食飯」等類似說話。上訴人回應說「呢度唔係比你哋食飯,我係要吹」,及更衣室是游泳人士可以優先使用的設施等類似說話,並以「垃圾婆」稱呼及用粗口辱罵兩人。林女士不甘示弱,也以粗口回罵。黎女士則勸林女士不要跟上訴人吵。

.....

10. 裁判官如此撮述林女士形容的事發過程:

「 控方第一証人(林女士)指稱被告以掃把有掃部份連續兩次掃向控方第一証人左邊額頭近太陽穴及眼瞼位置,控方第一証人指被告打她的力度為中度,因為事出突然,所以控方第一証人來不及反應。控方第一証人指事後感到面部刺痛,而且十分憤怒。她見被告襲擊她後將該把掃把掉在地上然後逃離女更衣室。控方第一証人於是執起被告掉下的掃把,然後跑上前追被告,但被告走得很快。控方第一証人指稱她當時感到被被告侮辱,她承認她拾起掃把追被告是想追打被告,但因為年紀大所以追不到被告。」

11. 雖然趕不上上訴人,但林女士和黎女士均清楚見到上訴人在逃跑時右手手肘位置撞到一條柱。

12. 與此同時,廖女士在大堂聽到有人大叫,然後見到林女士手持掃把追著上訴人,雙方距離大約1米左右。上訴人曾經跑出閘外,林女士亦跟隨到閘外。廖女士上前制止,按著林女士的肩膊,林女士於是將掃把掉下。廖女士隨後按上訴人要求,吩咐其他職員代為報警。

13. 林女士說她當時面部紅腫、觸痛、頭暈,由救護車送往伊利沙伯醫院接受治療,獲發一天病假。

看了判辭, 不勝慨嘆。這上訴人聲稱是受過大學教育的文職人員, 過往沒有定罪紀錄, 審訊後被定罪, 判處100小時社會服務令, 定罪上訴駁回。我感慨的不是她自此留下案底, 而是這個人的行為可悲。人與人相處磨擦難免, 以吹地機來吹頭當然可以預期因風力猛會導致水花四濺。兩位清潔工人開始時也沒有惡言相向, 水彈到人的飯餸, 很簡單講一聲道歉話, 才是文明有禮的做法, 怎可以罵起人「垃圾婆」來。反唇相稽粗言穢語之外, 還要用掃把打人, 很明顯這人的情緒有問題。公主你有病。待人接物也不是甚麼大學問, 只要待人有禮, 懂得尊重別人, 已幾乎是學問的全部了。咁巴閉, 鬧人垃圾婆, 睇人唔起, 屋企有無泳池吖? 喺屋企私家泳池游水囉, 做乜去公眾泳池呢, 唔怕沾污自己咩?

我一路看這判辭就一路罵這潑婦, 心裏就話你個八婆, 抵你死囉! 如果有單咁嘅求助寫畀我, 我一定會講sorry喎, 幫唔到你。

93 則留言:

  1. 拿...睇下又有無人話果個八婆係"新香港人"啦...

    總之有好野就話係"香港人",有衰野就話係"內地人","新移民"...

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有呢啲潑婦唔出奇,但係有果種好野就話係"香港人",有衰野就話係"內地人的人,才令人感到絕望,連反省的勇氣都無,只剩下推卸同赖帳

      刪除
    2. 有呢啲潑婦真係唔出奇, 剛剛看到明報這一單: 搭巴士袋佔鄰座半邊位惹爭執 28歲女推倒六旬婦兼踢女司機認罪 (20:21) https://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170712/s00001/1499854194752

      刪除
  2. 如果在fb或高登,就會有這類人
    在這個blog我相信少之又少。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 最簡單測試方法, 就係睇下有無人留言鬧我。

      刪除
    2. 高登城邦人永不會錯嘛。。。

      刪除
  3. There are too many such disgusting women in the world. Princess disease.

    回覆刪除
  4. 香港啲確有唔少人有情緒病,而且佢地仲四圍搞事,搞到其他人都有埋情緒病,可悲

    Blanc

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 不用搞國教, 搞下道德倫理, 待人接物好過。

      刪除
  5. 上網查一查,原來佢7月14日會上庭申請終審法院上訴許可之證明書。笑死!

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 釘完申請過review, 上訴駁回, 再上終院, 終院不批許可, 可能要跳橋了。

      刪除
  6. 終審法院睬佢都傻。
    香港人如此,精神科醫生及服務供不應求。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 香港存在過份呵護子女的問題, 不少人年紀成長, 心智幼稚。

      刪除
    2. 絕對贊同!有朋友十三歲女兒煮公仔麵係成包連袋帶麵放入熱水中… 街上六七歲小童還要坐bb車者大有人在… 小童食飯時只顧望住手機阿媽逐啖餵到埋口亦係常見… interpersonal relationship skills 係完全…無!

      刪除
    3. 我識一個女大律師 (唔講名啦) 個仔都讀小學啦佢依然係心智幼稚到同案中上訴人差唔多。好在佢生意差冇乜客如果唔係佢害死好多人。高分低能冇道德觀念嘅自私自大無能潑婦香港太多啦真係!

      刪除
  7. 標少,請問此女子的訴訟成本會是多少?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 頻頻請假囉。 在裁判法院審無律師, 我想是因為入息超標(用當值律師全年收入不能超過18萬幾, 第一堂免費代表兼無入息審查, 第二堂就要符合入息審查才繳$540), 所以當值律師不代表她, 她又沒有聘請私人律師, 定罪之後向栽判官申請覆核, 不知有沒有請律師, 上訴至高院又無律師, 所以除了請假就沒有成本了, 請假也分分鐘詐病呃假, 連假期的成本也沒有。

      刪除
    2. 多謝標少。
      游泳本是放鬆心情運動……

      刪除
  8. 就咁睇 Appellant 個名,仲以爲係 Special Mag 變被告添。睇埋内文先知係盲毛一條。

    回覆刪除
  9. 現今年輕一代的禮貌、「文明度」每況愈下。

    簡何巧雲 (Rachel Cartland:已退休的資深政務官,一直好撐陳方安生)認識一位溫婉有禮、智慧非凡的女士,但有次見面時,此女一反常態。何解?原來她坐巴士時,竟遭3名香港人圍攻辱罵,只因她說了幾句普通話。簡何巧雲告訴此女「汝道不孤」,因為一位現居香港的美籍華人朋友曾說,買東西時會自動轉Channel講英文,因為講普通話會遇上很差的反應(或曰「西口西面」)。對簡何巧雲來說,最諷刺的還是兩女都生於台灣而非中國大陸,但香港人視所有講普通話的人為衰人,完全不可理喻。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 請教一下,從標少的文章及其相關判辭,你如何看到該上訴人是「年輕一代」?講真,無禮貌是不分年齡階層,你今日舉一個無禮貌的年輕人做例子,他明日舉一個不文明的老人家的事例,這樣的討論有意思嗎?

      刪除
    2. 補充:

      「對簡何巧雲來說,最諷刺的還是兩女都生於台灣而非中國大陸,但香港人視所有講普通話的人為衰人,完全不可理喻。」

      又或者我嘗試改寫你的句子,「但有些香港人視所有年輕人為衰人,完全不可理喻。」

      這樣的句子,你喜歡填什麼都得,根本無助討論

      刪除
    3. 原文

      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkedition/2017-07/10/content_30051118.htm

      I ran into someone I have known for a while, a young woman of outstanding intelligence and thoughtfulness, a polite and considerate person whom anyone would be proud to have as a friend. However, she did not seem her usual composed self, and it turned out she had been the victim of a very nasty incident when, as a passenger on a bus, she had been subjected to hostile abuse by three Hong Kong residents. How had she provoked this? What crime had she committed? She had been heard speaking Putonghua. I told her this was not an isolated experience: an American Chinese person living here had mentioned to me that she customarily used English in local shops after finding that her Putonghua produced a very negative reaction.

      And what was truly ironic was that both these women had their origins in Taiwan rather than the Chinese mainland. We like to believe that our city is a safe and welcoming place but, in recent times, too many of our fellow citizens let us down and behave in a distinctly self-righteous and gratuitously abusive manner.

      刪除
  10. 上訴人選擇自辯,其實是否有點不智?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. http://www.mincity.net/lawy-society/%E5%8A%89%E6%B7%91%E5%AB%BB%E5%BE%8B%E5%B8%AB%E8%A1%8C
      應該只是剛巧同名同姓?

      刪除
    2. 無律師自辯或請律師, 是經濟的考慮。就算花了錢請律師也不見得會脫罪。

      刪除
    3. 請了馬鹿可能會不同 但馬鹿不做刑事 除非是本土弟兄姐妹或者親戚好友

      馬鹿

      刪除
    4. 當然不同, 律師費都蝕埋。

      刪除
    5. 大家見到的啊 標老大又在窒馬鹿 在欺壓馬鹿鳥

      我要公民拘捕! 我要公義 .


      小麗老母 長毛 羅37 姚松X 明天被DQ!

      馬鹿

      刪除
    6. 馬鹿不開口, 我一句也不提你, 怕你話我把你single out, 你要公民拘捕我, 你的道行不夠, 我不用拘捕你, 你自投羅網了。你都講了不做刑事, 即是力有不逮, 力有不逮也去接案, 就是行騙, 被告的錢就浪費了。你自己承認的, 我就不算窒你和欺壓你。

      那四位議員, 明天一人派發一紙箱, 執包袱去也。

      刪除
    7. 同意最后一句!

      泛民假抗争 真维稳 统统滚蛋!

      马鹿

      刪除
    8. 前段是戲話, 後段是真話。

      刪除
    9. 會唔會追番由九月開始嘅糧呢?

      刪除
    10. 法官區慶祥裁定,劉小麗、羅冠聰、姚松炎及梁國雄宣誓無效,宣布4人喪失議員資格,追溯至去年10月12日生效。

      http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1342116-20170714.htm

      刪除
    11. 如果果班"愛字頭"響度鬧法官判決是狗黨行為,成班泛民議員依家睇黎都係一群狗黨而已...

      刪除
    12. 採取雙重標準的人太多。

      刪除
    13. "高等法院撤銷四名議員的資格,港大法律學系首席講師張達明認為,案件有上訴空間,他指判決只需要法官從客觀事實判斷議員宣誓是否有效,即使議員沒有拒絕宣誓的意圖,法庭可以得出結論,他對這種演繹非常有保留。"
      http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1342209-20170714.htm?spTabChangeable=0

      張達明唔出聲無人話佢啞的吧...

      刪除
    14. 除左屁股決定腦袋,張達明似乎仲係讀criminal law 讀壞腦。

      刪除
    15. 張達明~讀屎片嘅所謂學者!六個人做同樣嘅嘢,法官判案法律理據基本一樣,如何可以在游梁被ban之下話呢四個有上訴空間?

      刪除
    16. [68] Fourth, Mr Lee argues that since a member-elect is in effect “penalised” by being prevented from taking up the Office if it is found that he has declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath, the court must apply the criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt to find a member-elect has so declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath. This is particular so as, says Mr Lee, the “penalty” is a very serious one when considered under the context that he or she is elected by the electorate to represent them at the LegCo.

      刪除
    17. 近日應酬太多, 還未看判辭。

      刪除
    18. 選民選佢地入去唔係做議員,做"實事",係想佢地做呢類"柒事"?

      正如陶君行去年講過:如果佢地當日大大聲話"你就算選到我,我都唔會去效忠呢個政府,會自動辭職"的話,班選民都選佢入去既話就有得話"知情"...

      刪除
    19. 這些人給以往的立會主席害死了, 以為胡亂宣誓好風光, 任何法律後果也沒有, 所以各自演譯踏入立法會門檻的神功戲。他們愧對選民。泛民在哭泣, 尤其是毛姑姑, 諉過於法庭, 諉過於政府。他們自己卻不去反省自己這些小學雞伎倆完全是廢柴行為, 授人以柄。到了現在哭哭啼啼耍小強, 有屁用。如果有建制派的人在宣誓時說效忠共產黨, 同樣會被DQ, 人家口不講, 心在想, 跟足程序, 順順利利入局發揮建制功能, 只有你班泛民在發揮小學雞的功能。下一步的策略是爭取補選, 爭回一些議席, 而不是哭哭啼啼。

      刪除
    20. 眾矢無咗羅37都幾頭痕, 黃之鋒、肥仔林淳軒咁勇博出位, 可否參加補選都是未知數

      刪除
    21. The entire judgement was based upon the interpretation of the NPCSC. Having said that the interpretation was found to be effective from July 1997 (CA Judgement), no one could have predicted the newly added requirements. With respect, it would be unfair to incriminate the previous LegCo Ps.

      刪除
    22. 所以鄭松泰幾醒,做足程序入了局後才慢慢玩。。。

      刪除
    23. Happy Zenith,

      I refer your attention to [40],[53],[96] and [137] where Thomas Au refers to common law requirement. You might also recall the approach of not referring to the NPSCS interpretation in the 糧油 judgment.

      刪除
    24. The monkey show lasts only for a few minutes. The successful taking of the oath lasts for a term of 4 years in office. If previous presidents took a stricter stance, no one would venture to put up a show like this. It is simply not worthwhile to take the risk.

      刪除
    25. The defendants' best shot is to argue against judicial encroachment on internal affairs of the legislature. The major legal purpose (as opposed to its political purpose) of the NPCSC interpretation is to seal the fate of that argument for it makes it abundantly clear that a breach of relevant statutory & common law requirements is also a breach of constitutional requirement.

      刪除
    26. The pan-dems should consider themselves lucky provided that Chen Zuo-er called for DQ8 instead of DQ4.

      刪除
    27. No use, mate. There are more JR to come.

      刪除
    28. I trust Rimsky Yuen has done his best to contain the uncontainable.

      刪除
    29. But he cannot stop applications from other individuals.

      刪除
    30. //如果有建制派的人在宣誓時說效忠共產黨, 同樣會被DQ//
      法律係冇眼既,唔理人咩立場,冇跟到程序就郁你,跟左就保你。我唔認同咁既思想,咁樣做總會有助紂為虐既時候,例如今次咁,萬一建制派乘機通過不利市民既議案咁點?相信你會再講:係佢地咁宣誓法,責任應該在佢地。我一開始已經講,我就係唔同意法律不顧後果地中立,你話我咁樣係唔認同法治都得。我認為法律就好似「君子死冠不免」既冠,後果嚴重就要放低個冠,唔好就算後果係死都要戴番個冠。就算佢地係宣錯誓都唔應該任由事情變壞

      刪除
    31. Ordinary die-hard fans of the CCP in HK can hardly afford the proceedings. Richer shoe-shiners will listen to Sai Wan's command.
      It is therefore a political decision for the CCP to make.

      刪除
    32. 3.09,

      也不要講得太簡單, 早幾日終審駁回長洲覆核王對議員辭職後6個月內不能參加補選的上訴, 首席法官馬道立列出審判憲制爭論時法庭的態度, 其中一種考慮是proportionality。Proportionality的4步曲:

      5. The proportionality analysis involves four steps for the Court to determine. These were set out in Hysan as follows:-[45]

      “134. In Hong Kong, such a proportionality assessment has been viewed as involving a three-step process of asking: (i) whether the intrusive measure pursues a legitimate aim; (ii) if so, whether it is rationally connected with advancing that aim; and (iii) whether the measure is no more than necessary for that purpose.

      135. A fourth step should be added. In line with a substantial body of authority, where an encroaching measure has passed the three-step test, the analysis should incorporate a fourth step asking whether a reasonable balance has been struck between the societal benefits of the encroachment and the inroads made into the constitutionally protected rights of the individual, asking in particular whether pursuit of the societal interest results in an unacceptably harsh burden on the individual.”
      (FACV No. 12 of 2016 本星期二上載的)

      第4步驟已反駁了你所講「法律不顧後果地中立」。如果建制派趁火打劫, 就會引起反彈, 對將來普選不利, 這是雙刃刀。

      刪除
    33. I withdraw my first statement, but I contend that a LegCo P would not have anticipated all these.

      He/She has political duties, as a representative of the pro-establishment camp, shows his/her reasonable tolerance. He/She would not have anticipated the NPCSC Interpretation and the reaction of the executive branch in the 2016-2020 term.

      On political sense alone, this is not a wise move.

      It is also interesting to read that one quoted Sorcrates in his submission and was stopped by the Chief Judge. I laughed when I saw this.

      刪除
    34. (referring to what Au J quoted from the CA judgement)

      刪除
    35. True. No one anticipates it would develop into a DQ scenario. Yet, taking oath is unlike discussion during the Legco meeting. The President should be liberally tolerant at the meeting while literally rigid when an official oath which is by nature apolitical is taken. The oath follows the law book has no room for different renditions.

      刪除
    36. Referring to the Exact Form and Content Requirement, would Hon Wong Ting-kwong be disqualified?

      刪除
    37. 泛民自己仲要死攬住梁游呢兩件負資產,仲要響度俾呢兩件野去大放厥詞,似乎佢地真係對搶果班激進既票未死心...
      佢地越咁做,班激進點都唔會轉投佢地不特止,支持開佢地果班溫和派也越來越對佢地失望,跟住下次寧願唔投票(呢班人也是成世不會投建制的),結果,激進派選票越來越穩固,泛民失去既位就拱手相讓俾激進自決果班人...
      唉,華叔一去,泛民好似無舵手的船咁週圍飛,遲早撞落冰山...

      刪除
    38. 好心啦...仲要搵定光叔個例出黎話要DQ埋人...

      人地之前有無話過"反對呢個政權","不是真心宣誓"呀?法官都叫大家用下common sense去想下有無犯法啦...
      泛民無common sense就話嗟,其粉絲又跟住無?

      刪除
    39. I intended to make it a legal discussion, as per para 29 of the judgement.

      亂扣帽子不難,我也會。

      刪除
    40. 我想聽下DQ有什麼societal benefits,或者係唔DQ又會造成什麼burden

      刪除
    41. 我還未看判辭, 不敢過份回應, 但黃定光屬於讀漏了字, 與「莊重」及「誠心」無關, 讀漏了讀錯了就要從事實上作判斷是刻意抑或無心之失。雖然法律上要求要按誓章的字來讀, 但也不會嚴苛到無心之失的漏讀也使宣誓無效, 起碼沒有其他舉動使人覺得他是刻意這樣做。他的情況理應過關。

      刪除
    42. 請教標少
      DQ4公然違反禁制令
      政府同立法會都唔出手
      路人甲點樣可以舉報佢地

      刪除
    43. "我想聽下DQ有什麼societal benefits,或者係唔DQ又會造成什麼burden"
      是否應由為甚麼要宣誓講起, 然後才講為何要莊嚴和真誠?

      刪除
    44. 4.19,

      向立法會或律政司投訴, 違反禁制令構成藐視法庭罪。

      刪除
    45. "In this respect, the oath taker shall be regarded in law to have declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath if he commits any intentional acts or conducts, which are found not to be compliant with the oath taking legal requirements."

      (Para 34)

      I think "intentional" is the key. If Wong's omission was found as unintentional, then he could get rid of it.

      Correct me if I am wrong, if one of the Requirements set out in Part B is not satisfied, and the act is intentional, one is disqualified from assuming office.

      刪除
    46. Rationality Test/Justification Test/Proportionality Test are mostly used to assess restrictions of constitutional rights. The court is not consistent in using the same approach in deciding constitutional cases.

      刪除
    47. So you are right, indeed.

      For appeal, I would say there is no prospect of success, at least at CA level, given that CJHC and Lam VP will likely be the ones who hear the same arguments over again.

      Needless to say, this will further deteriorate our social division. Is it really something worths celebrating?

      刪除
    48. 4:19
      似乎長毛已經嚴選過聲明字眼。
      佢只係話佢地想入去佢地原來開會的地方。

      刪除
    49. DQ4嘅宣誓同黃定光比? 笑了

      刪除
    50. 以宣誓而言, 同意樓上某師兄所一講, 佢醒過DQ4, 或者如佢所講,"其他人都係白癡"?

      刪除
    51. 長毛呢鋪計算錯誤咗喇.佢一向精於計算,每次掉東西都不會擊中任何人,所犯嘅事通常都係罰款甚至短期監禁,唔會影響到佢議員嘅職務,每次都係推啲小朋友去死,自己坐埋一邊。今次玩大咗喇!唔好以為以前嘅主席唔嘈,就代表係合法先得㗎… 個人意見,佢哋今次係比游梁害死。如果游梁唔係去到咁盡,支拿都出埋,觸動中共嘅底線,根本都會由得佢哋繼續玩。 鄭松泰就精啦!正正經經咁宣誓,入咗去先至慢慢玩,仲個個月有人工袋,幾開心呀!

      刪除
    52. 梁游這兩蠢貨的言行確實讓保皇黨打開了缺口。

      刪除
    53. 原來仲排緊幾單DQ案未審,不過全部都係市民入稟。既然咁多朋友仔代政府出手,當然林鄭昨日話政府冇DQ其他議員既打算

      依昨日既判詞,這幾個小弟估計都係兇多吉少。咁泛民就大獲啦,當連全體議員都唔過三分一,到時建制想點改基本法都得了

      建制今次真係多謝泛民啦

      刪除
    54. 梁游依家仲係泛民一員喎,明知佢地係鬼都要力保佢,泛民真係,唉。。。

      刪除
  11. 蘋果新聞
    http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20170713/56950797
    「你唔可以講畀人知,講畀人知就炒你魷魚」
    咁都唔算刑恐
    又一個唔付合正常人常識嘅判決
    係法官離地,定係法律有問題
    所以正常法治社會要用修例解決?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 除非解僱之後仲有糧出。

      刪除
    2. 未明標少意思,可否多說一下
      Bill hk

      刪除
    3. Bill兄,

      刑事恐嚇的元索:

      任何人威脅其他人 ——
      (a)會使該其他人的人身、名譽或財產遭受損害...

      陳官認為威脅炒魷只是終止僱傭關係, 並非財產損害(injury to property), 我以「仲有糧出」這戲言來調侃, 仲有糧出咪無損害囉。陳官是個好官, 這判決是純法律釋義的問題, 判辭未上載, 我只是看新聞來估。

      刪除
    4. 记得有次CROSS中, Coleman话我当事人警告要报警是恐吓. 我当时也是WHAAAAT?!

      马鹿

      刪除
    5. Yes, some sort of intimidation but no criminal intent.

      刪除
  12. http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20170712/56945947
    原來仲有一單
    運人蛇唔算危駕又可以唔知情,警察追賊反而係危險
    先唔講法律原則
    判決經常離地,法官定法律,總有一個出咗問題
    小市民可以點攪,“我要真普選”可以幫到我嗎
    政府同立法會合作,秒速修例??
    普通法比成文法嘅好處之一,唔係就係俾法官極大空間,令判決可以貼地一啲嗎

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 作為一個普通市民,運人蛇真係唔算危駕wor
      就算你車住葉繼歡去打劫,都唔係危駕呀

      運人蛇本身犯法,所以串謀販運人蛇罪名咪成立lor

      兩個司機,一個串謀販運人蛇罪名不成立,咁就要睇下點解個官信佢唔知道la

      刪除
  13. 最令我睇唔過眼嘅, 唔係DQ, 係被DQ嘅人之後嘅舉動, 梁游要仆返入去再宣誓, DQ4要仆返入去再開會,你咁唔輸得就咪玩嘢,倒轉你如果喺宣誓大大聲話:我唔支持呢個政權嘅嘞, 炒我就炒啦,我反而會敬你係一個漢子, 有始有終,而家? 我只會恥笑

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 十萬月薪,做契弟都要啦。。。

      刪除
    2. 何止, 你話再畀次機會梁游, 宣誓時要講效忠共產黨就過關, 佢哋會猶豫, 你話人工加多十萬, 佢哋即刻答應。

      刪除
    3. merely a speculation sans foundation.....


      马鹿

      刪除
    4. Not even a speculation. The performance of the duo gives rise to the impression that they can sell their soul to anyone when the price fits. I can only say I believe they are such kind of persons. I may be wrong.

      刪除
    5. 以標少人生經驗,閱人無數
      我認同標少講法。

      刪除