Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (150029)	8/14/2019 9:48:40 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By marcher Respond to of 217852

I believe the article you cited holds much truth moonofalabama.org , and if so, the related and below appended article also holds much truth if both so, then I shall continue to delve down the chain and into the depth. the protestors in aggregate tabled 5 demands - withdraw of the extradition bill, which is already dead. - ceo resignation - should the ceo resign on demand by way of violence, hk would be lost. - not term the protests 'riot'. riot is defined in hk law per original British imperialism definition "", and is clear, and hk is in line w/ rule of law <<Riot is a legal term. The law says if “three or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace” and a breach of the peace resulted, the assembly is a “riot”>>. - call for independent inquiry - <<As to the call for an independent inquiry, the Independent Police Complaints Council has announced it would carry out an inquiry into the events relating to the protests and clashes. This is an existing and trusted mechanism used before in relation to investigating conduct of the police. True, it is not exactly what the protesters want but, again, the government has taken at least one step back here.>> may not be valid, but we shall see. IPCC may or may not be fair, independent, but it only consider cases put to it by the Complaint Against Police Office (CAPO) which is a police office, and in the way that the police puts it, although the complainant can keep complaining by offering up more proof and complaint about the CAPO investigation itself, and the complainant is able to ask questions for discoveries which might progressively weaken the police case without the police able to do same against the complainant so the odds are fair enough. Wrongdoing by police once proven would lead to pretty dire consequences for the wrong-doers I guess for pension and such, prison terms aside, as it should be the case for wrong-doers. - call for no-prosecution of rioters - as far as I am concerned, either we have rule of law or we do not, and prosecution issue is independent of all other issues except for veracity / safeness of proof, which be what the court is for. So, am even handed I believe, but let us see how events go. scmp.com