I marched in the Sunday march out of curiosity. I was near the chicken guy and noted that he spent most of the march attempting to chat up the "Students 4 Fair Trade" girls.

Stay away from the jail bait, chicken guy.

ha ha. Why am I not surprised. The cock was going after the hens.

In local eyes the violence of Saturday night shot down much of the sympathy locals had for the protesters.

Actually this is far from the case. People are fuming over how the police used excessive force on Saturday; things like:

• Water cannon directed at a crowd that is already retreating
• Pepper spray directed at the eyes of the protesters
• Tear gas directed at paramedics
• (overheard by a reporter) a police commander ordering his subordinates, "You lot get back here, and beat anyone in sight!"

If anything the locals are running out of sympathy for the local police.

My heart bleeds for them.

Many people from Hong Kong, who can ironicly say with some pride that they don't know what it is like to be in the middle of a violent protest, made a mistake of getting too close. As did many of the media too inexperienced in this sort of thing to know better.

I imagine from on the ground it might not have looked clear. And yes after 28 hours with little or no sleep the police record is almost certainly not perfect. Boo hoo.

Water cannons are meant to drive people back. When they are far enough back they are turned off.

Pepper spray is Meant to be sprayed in the face.

I had not heard the tear gas one but I highly doubt one of the civil service disiplined units (hte police) would deliberately attack their colleagues in another disciplined unit.
As to the last one - very probably - as I said, 28 hours without sleep and people throwing large heavy objects at them, determined to do nothing but get past the police any way they could.

At the end of the day. Anyone who sticks their head in the lions mouth(journos and locals in this case) should expect a risk of getting it bit off.

The police repelled. In many other countries they would have charged. That shows remarkable restraint.

(Please excuse my typing - coordination is a bit off today)

BTW when I said people were fuming I was not only referring to the locals... the Korean farmers also were. Don't let the media fool you.

I imagine from on the ground it might not have looked clear. And yes after 28 hours with little or no sleep the police record is almost certainly not perfect. Boo hoo.

I think it is fair to expect a near-flawless record from "the Asia's finest police force". Either that or drop the stupid claim.

Water cannons are meant to drive people back. When they are far enough back they are turned off.

No, they were used AFTER people were retreating. Have a look at the TV footage again. And did they not say they would never ever use water cannons on people?

Pepper spray is Meant to be sprayed in the face.

No they are not. Have a look at the police guidelines sometime. They are only meant to be directed at the chests ONLY, at a distance of no less than 60cm, after adequate verbal warning.

The police repelled. In many other countries they would have charged. That shows remarkable restraint.

I'm not saying they were not showing restraint. They did. However we should be careful not to allow the police to use this incident to legitimize their increasing use of excessive force against protesters in future.

BTW according to the Korean press this is the first time ever their fellow citizens have been arrested for taking part in demonstrations overseas.

I'm a HK reporter who had personal experience with the chicken guy (a wanker, I was proud to get a peevish whining email from him) and the Koreans and the cops this last week.
Except for Fowl Tom, I think all others concerned conducted themselves fairly well. A little kerfuffle between kops and Koreans after all the polite posturing was to be expected. Nothing to get the proverbial panties in a wad about.
I also think anyone from the Lion Rock Institute should be taken with a gi-normous wad of shrimp paste.
Andrew's paranoid blathering reminded me of the folks in the US in the '60s and '60s railing about the "communist/socialist threat." He's just concerned that some of their activism may eventually result in something as radical as a minimum wage and maximum work week in Hong Kong.
The horror! The horror!

Spacehunt: if a person sprays graffiti on a consulate wall, they deserve to be arrested. If a person disobeys their previously agreed march permit, races down a major road and confronts police, they deserve to be arrested. If a person pushes and shoves against police, they deserve to be arrested. The Korean papers may not believe it, but police are there to uphold the law. When these protesters broke it, and they did, they were rounded up and taken away. Was the police response excessive? No. Check the link above to the Standard article - if you are a cop and a bunch of protesters is rushing at you with steel, you are entitled to use force. The key is proportionality, and the police were not disproportionate.

Thank you Simon, you said it better than me

Spacehunt - I happily stand corrected on some of my points. I do not believe this will be used as a precedent. And I do not believe it was excessive.

George, Andrew may be radical in his beliefs which are for pure capitalism (Hong Kong is an example of that) amd no government intervention except to provide a level playing field. I would agree with him. As an entrepreneur and an employer the thought of a minimum wage and maximum working hours would be a disaster. The market should decide. Not governments else people like me who take risks that lead to other people having employment opportunities would never be able to get our small companies off the ground.

Simon: I am not saying that the Koreans should not be arrested. They clearly broke HK law, there's no argument about that. I am arguing, and I agree to disagree with you on this, that the police themselves have been using force illegally. I did not say whether they were using force proportionally or not, but should proportionality even matter? Surely you are not suggesting an eye for an eye here...

I think proportionality is the perfect word for it. You need to consider how much force is required to actually stop the protesters? It will, be definition, likely be more than that the protesters are using themselves. It has to be enough to regain control, to deter and to subdue. If someone is throwing a punch, throwing one back won't quell the situation. Spraying them with pepper spray might.

We can agree to disagree. I've seen the footage repeatedly and in a chaotic situation the police acting on impulse and instinct, but still within the bounds of proportionate response. Only two serious injuries is a testament to that.

Simon: There has to be better, more intelligent ways of using force to calm an angry mob than spraying pepper spray directly in the eyes of people. But yes, the police deserves credit for limiting the number of injuries on Saturday. Certainly much better than Cronulla.

Flagrant: Whether it will be used as a precedent or not, we will have to see. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, etc.

"There has to be better, more intelligent ways of using force to calm an angry mob than spraying pepper spray directly in the eyes of people."

Like what, say pretty please?

Those idiots should count themselves lucky all they got was pepper spray. They come to the city with the sole intention of breaking laws and making everyone's life a misery.

Ronald Reagan's teargas equipped helicopters were the perfect response to moronic protestors. Anything less is pandering to them.

Like what, say pretty please?

Not directly in the eyes intentionally, perhaps? As I have mentioned above. Sure by all means use pepper spray but at least follow your own rules?

Other than that I am proud of the HK Police.

Flagrant you wrote "As an entrepreneur and an employer the thought of a minimum wage and maximum working hours would be a disaster. The market should decide. Not governments else people like me who take risks that lead to other people having employment opportunities would never be able to get our small companies off the ground.''
Yeah. Right. It's been a disaster in the US since it was introduced for women and children in Massachusetts in 1912.
And since when has Hong Kong ever provided a "level playing field" for anyone except the tycoons and triads?
Forgive the lengthy citation from an April 2004 Asia Times online piece by Gary LaMoshi, but I think it's spot-on.
"Contrary to local mythology and the Heritage Foundation's annual ranking of Hong Kong as the "world's freest economy" or the runner-up to Singapore (see Singapore Inc peels a veil in the dark, March 26), the government has played a vital role in creating Hong Kong wealth, dating back to the opium trade. The property market is at the root of most modern Hong Kong fortunes, and since colonial times, that industry has been dependent on the government, which owns all land (and, contrary to another myth, creates more via reclamation of the harbor), sells it to developers and then - here's the key - the buyer negotiates with the government to determine what can be built. It can be a 76-story office/hotel/residential/retail complex instead of a six-story block of flats, depending on your clout.
The other half of the Hong Kong myth is that people just want to do business without any interference from government or the distraction of politics. While it's true that Hong Kong has never had democracy, politics has played a crucial role - for some people. Tycoons, such as Tung and Cheung Kong, Hutchison Whampoa's Li Ka-shing, father of dot-bomber Richard Li and putative Air Canada rescuer Victor Li - sat on the colonial governor's Executive Council. The great and good simply opposed letting the vast majority of Hong Kong people have a voice equal to theirs that might object to tycoons making a killing at their expense."