沈陣營第二百七十九期 - 師父橫眉冷對千夫指，成日收埋袋底牛
VicF
1001 回覆
6 Like
1 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁第 29 頁第 30 頁第 31 頁第 32 頁第 33 頁第 34 頁第 35 頁第 36 頁第 37 頁第 38 頁第 39 頁第 40 頁第 41 頁
港共係呢方面真係好叻
論諗頭香港創意贏硬, 係平時OT 開, 返工唔俾用腦先局限想像
日本係米到挑花既極緻既話咁香港就係瘋狂化學作用撞D 新野出黎
日本係米到挑花既極緻既話咁香港就係瘋狂化學作用撞D 新野出黎
我識呢design仔。其實佢地係創意無限，只係上面老屎忽同埋客戶扭曲晒成個核心思維。
一張巴士站海報平平無奇，大公司畫，兩皮，一個ive仔畫, 幾叉野。最後都係用大公司，因為兩皮就係買保證。
最後出到街，呢人睇完係黑人問號。
一張巴士站海報平平無奇，大公司畫，兩皮，一個ive仔畫, 幾叉野。最後都係用大公司，因為兩皮就係買保證。
最後出到街，呢人睇完係黑人問號。
多得啲閪客唔少
我係習敗北應該一早搵人買起佢再屈示威者
啲客唔識欣賞
所有野都係咁, 唔敢冒險, 唔鼓勵創新
結果一直都係食老本, 續集唔係重拍就REBOOT再黎過
然後個D 大公司一獨大左, 呢個風氣又起入面傳開, 一言堂
禮成
結果一直都係食老本, 續集唔係重拍就REBOOT再黎過
然後個D 大公司一獨大左, 呢個風氣又起入面傳開, 一言堂
禮成
香港人做design比老闆壓太實
而日本一睇就知係日本
論快論癲, 一定係香港
而日本一睇就知係日本
論快論癲, 一定係香港
諗起 我和僵屍有個約會123
其實3集都幾好睇
其實3集都幾好睇
啱啱追完金宵大廈都幾好睇
香港始終都有西洋 / 日本 / 支那 / 本土的文化沖擊。
睇呢文宣真係到肉到不得了。
奈何design呢一行真係同it dog冇咩分別
睇呢文宣真係到肉到不得了。
奈何design呢一行真係同it dog冇咩分別
香港?
不嬲都係old seafood獨大，所以打壓啲創意啦！
我本人最清楚
不嬲都係old seafood獨大，所以打壓啲創意啦！
我本人最清楚
師父五行買兩邊，今日一定執格仔食盡波幅
成team去查証仲要full gear 真係估佢唔到 
點睇？
ERO: one judicial review, two judges
Webb-site has learned that in a very rare move, the Chief Justice has directed that 2 judges sit together in the Court of First Instance to hear the judicial review of the Chief Executive's use of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance.
Webb-site has learned that, in a very rare move, the judicial review of the HK Chief Executive's decision to issue the Prohibition on Face Coverings Regulation under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO) will be heard by not one but two judges sitting together in the Court of First Instance (CFI).
The initial application was heard on Sunday 6-Oct-2019 by Justice Godfrey Lam Wan Ho. At the "rolled-up hearing" to be held on 31-Oct and 1-Nov, he will be joined by Justice Anderson Chow Ka Ming. Section 32 of the High Court Ordinance provides that CFI proceedings will be heard by a single judge (with a jury in criminal trials). For non-criminal hearings such as this one, there is only one exception to the rule: under Section 32(3), the Chief Justice of HK may direct that any proceeding, or class of proceeding, in the CFI "shall be heard and determined by 2 or more judges of the Court."
This is very rare, and the fact that Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao Li has made this direction appears to emphasise the importance of this case, which we explained in our analysis Carrie Lam and the Separation of Powers (8-Oct-2019), and the one before that, Making laws via the ERO may be unconstitutional (4-Oct-2019).
We don't know what the dynamics of a 2-judge CFI hearing will be - for example, there is no room for a majority decision, so there will be pressure, or at least some expectation, on the judges to agree a unanimous decision rather than produce two opposing judgments!
In any event, whichever side loses is almost certain to appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Court of Final Appeal. If the Government loses in the CFA then it may become the Court of Semi-Final Appeal if the HK Government once again seeks an interpretation from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress under Basic Law Article 158.
© Webb-site.com, 2019
ERO: one judicial review, two judges
Webb-site has learned that in a very rare move, the Chief Justice has directed that 2 judges sit together in the Court of First Instance to hear the judicial review of the Chief Executive's use of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance.
Webb-site has learned that, in a very rare move, the judicial review of the HK Chief Executive's decision to issue the Prohibition on Face Coverings Regulation under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO) will be heard by not one but two judges sitting together in the Court of First Instance (CFI).
The initial application was heard on Sunday 6-Oct-2019 by Justice Godfrey Lam Wan Ho. At the "rolled-up hearing" to be held on 31-Oct and 1-Nov, he will be joined by Justice Anderson Chow Ka Ming. Section 32 of the High Court Ordinance provides that CFI proceedings will be heard by a single judge (with a jury in criminal trials). For non-criminal hearings such as this one, there is only one exception to the rule: under Section 32(3), the Chief Justice of HK may direct that any proceeding, or class of proceeding, in the CFI "shall be heard and determined by 2 or more judges of the Court."
This is very rare, and the fact that Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao Li has made this direction appears to emphasise the importance of this case, which we explained in our analysis Carrie Lam and the Separation of Powers (8-Oct-2019), and the one before that, Making laws via the ERO may be unconstitutional (4-Oct-2019).
We don't know what the dynamics of a 2-judge CFI hearing will be - for example, there is no room for a majority decision, so there will be pressure, or at least some expectation, on the judges to agree a unanimous decision rather than produce two opposing judgments!
In any event, whichever side loses is almost certain to appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Court of Final Appeal. If the Government loses in the CFA then it may become the Court of Semi-Final Appeal if the HK Government once again seeks an interpretation from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress under Basic Law Article 158.
© Webb-site.com, 2019