我習慣看明報, 都看了幾十年。今天的即時新聞有此標題: 

反東北13子刑期終極上訴得直　吳秋北批法官是社會罪人　嘆法治墮落 

內文一段有此描述: 

吳秋北前晚於facebook談及事件，指「終院法官竟做老好人又遂其不甘，予釋放，縱其惡。這豈是愛護青年！實在是害死青年！」他表示，這幫「罪犯」為社會埋下「定時炸彈」，將「毒害一代青年」，指摘「法官老爺已成青年殺手，社會罪人！人們應想想法治是怎樣墮落的！」 

若果這位不是工聯會頭頭, 我都不想批評。潮流興講言論自由, 吳會長有權發表偉論, 街市佬一樣有權論政、論法律、論AI、論論盡盡...you name it. 「遂其不甘」? 不甘甚麼?  雖然終院13子案判詞還未頒佈, 但內容大概都可以估到, 因為7個月前頒佈的雙學3子案已定了調,  

123.  The sentencing principles which the Court of Appeal laid down in cases of unlawful assembly involving violence (CA Judgment at [151]) were therefore entirely appropriate, namely:

“(1) In accordance with general sentencing principles, the court will have regard to all the actual circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the facts pertaining to the commission of the offence. Appropriate weight will then be accorded to each applicable sentencing factor, and a sentence that is commensurate with the offence will then be imposed. The same principles apply to cases of unlawful assembly involving violence.

(2) Although the definition of unlawful assembly in section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance is relatively simple, the range of factual situations covered is wide. The seriousness of the facts involved varies from case to case and may, depending on the actual circumstances, run from the extremely trivial to the extremely serious. Incidents involving violence are certainly much closer to the serious end of cases, but the facts of different cases still vary. So even for the more serious cases there will still be a spectrum of seriousness. Within the spectrum, the court will accord appropriate weight to the applicable sentencing factors based on the actual circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the facts pertaining to the commission of the offence.

(3) On the basic premise that the public order must be maintained, and taking into account the gravamen of the offence of unlawful assembly, the court has to consider the factor of deterrence in sentencing. As to how much weight it should accord to this factor, the court has to have regard of the actual circumstances of the case.

(4) If the case is of a relatively minor nature, such as when the unlawful assembly was unpremeditated, small in scale, involving very little violence, and not causing any bodily harm or damage to property, the court may give proportionally more weight[101]to such factors as the personal circumstances of the offender, his motives or reasons for committing the offence and the sentencing factor of rehabilitation while proportionally less weight to the sentencing factor of deterrence.

(5) If the case is a serious one, such as when the unlawful assembly involving violence is large-scale or it involves serious violence, the court would give the two sentencing factors, namely punishment and deterrence, great weight and give very little weight or, in an extreme case, no weight to factors such as the personal circumstances of the offender, his motives or reasons of committing the offence and the sentencing factor of rehabilitation.

(6) After the appropriate weight has been accorded to all the applicable sentencing factors, the court would then impose a sentence on the offender that is commensurate with the case.”

(FACC8/2017)

在雙學3子案, 終院事實上是接納了上訴庭判刑考慮的宗旨, 講到尾是上訴庭加刑幅度太大, 主要參考英國更嚴重案情的罰則, 而妄顧香港判刑的案例。故此, 東北13子的判刑終極上訴, 一早就可以預期是用雙學3子案同樣思維來判。這次13子刑期上訴得直, 熟悉刑事法的人應該不感驚訝。有乜好嘈? 講乜法治墮落? 批評也要批評得有理據, 而不是喊口號。連批評都不懂就不如打下秋風, 淨係話做乜咁輕手, 咪瞎扯法治來講, 連法治是甚麼也不懂就呱呱叫。所以這些建制得來質素不高的人只會幫倒忙。 

另一則明報即時新聞: 

民主牆粗口標語遭強制移除　中大學生會譴責校方越權違規

中文大學和教育大學學生會代表，日前在開學禮致辭時均有提到「港獨」。特首林鄭月娥譴責及不點名批評他們散播不實和違反《基本法》言論。中大民主牆上周二（4日）貼上含粗口字眼的16字標語，不滿林鄭月娥批評學生言辭，「學生講乜，關你X事」。學生會指，標語下方有清晰列明署名及張貼日期，內容亦符合民主牆使用守則，所以保留標語，可是兩日後校方以「受管理層壓力，要清除粗口標語」為由移走。

學生哥又侃侃而談言論自由了, 有本事就貼張有理據的大字報, 而不是示弱式宣示器官, 咁鍾意以器官相贈, 就記得填張器官捐贈咭, 不過話時話, 又好似無人要嗰啲器官喎。唔知有無人寫論文研究今時今日大學生用粗口的普及性, 我都好有興趣知研究結果。唉! 都唔怕失禮死人。不知醜陋為何物, 言論自由聲鏗鏘。