梁特涉濫權 逼機管局幫幼女送行李入禁區

momomo1997

將共產党的特權手法搬來香港！
天怒人怨！

momomo1997

simontonysoup 發表於 2016-4-7 10:30
梁頌圻係個正常女仔，俾D私人空間佢，當做件好事吧。

包庇共犯！

kinsoncc

hk3937 發表於 2016-4-7 11:51
你古 omama 個女ｄ行李又洗唔洗 check 呢？　根本 dipomat 既 family member 係 uk 就免，　有 artical 講．　不過好多人唔識睇

咁你地仲唔快d開題還擊?

hk3937

kinsoncc 發表於 2016-4-7 12:00
咁你地仲唔快d開題還擊?

返緊工，　唔同佢地咁尊業反中，　我出唔夠幾個 post 就會俾佢洗左板　所以佢地同rthk 一樣，　只要出反中新聞多就自然殺左建制既言論自由．　

沈陽海哥

梁頌昕原定於3月28日凌晨乘坐國泰CX872由香港機場往美國三藩市，
入閘後等候上機期間，才發現手提行李遺留在機場禁區外。

香港特首梁振英 Leung Chun Ying  (61歲) 的太太 - 梁唐青儀 Regina Leung Tong Ching Yee
(59歲 /  專業 : 香港律師)  當時以特殊人員身份陪同幼女  -  梁頌昕 入閘送機，
她隨即要求航空公司職員協助，將幼女行李送到禁區內。

香港職員解釋基於機場既定保安規定，乘客必須親身到禁區外認領行李及重新辦理出境手續，
惟梁太堅持對方協助。

真羞家 ..... 1983年 在香港取得律師執業資格的 香港第一家庭  - 梁唐青儀 (59歲  /  專業 : 香港律師)

真正真正  給香港第一恥辱 ............ 梁家恥辱


根據1961年《維也納公約》訂定，國家元首及使節可享有特權，他們的行李不用經過安檢就可帶上飛機。

香港人民質疑，香港特首的幼女  -   梁頌昕當時是否可以有「VIP」即可享有 "特權"  ......  貴賓級身份上機 ?

PKIP11

hk3937 發表於 2016-4-7 10:42
有興趣明白吓英國點處理既睇下: https://www.justlanded.com/english/United-Kingdom/Articles/Visas-Permi ...

英國入境物品課稅簡介同話題有乜關係?

hk3937

PKIP11 發表於 2016-4-7 12:34
英國入境物品課稅簡介同話題有乜關係?

same same by logic, as there are no need to tax might be no need to check as well. under same common law, politicians family have special right. to be exact need to check the exact wordings in relevent statue

onngau

最終受害的是市民！

PKIP11

回復 hk3937 #27 的帖子

Cannot see any logic at all !!!

The U.K. tax guide being quoted is for incoming passengers, whereas Miss Leung is an outgoing passenger.  Luggage check for outgoing passengers is mainly for security purpose, NOT for tax purpose.  That diplomats and certain VIP passengers have the right to bring their luggage on board a plane without going through usual checking procedures does not entitle them to deploy airport operations staff to carry the luggage for them.  

simontonysoup

momomo1997 發表於 2016-4-7 11:58
包庇共犯！

梁頌昕一向冇巴巴閉，亦未有過負面報導。
現在只有蘋果一方資料，俾機會當事人回應都好合理吧。
我為佢出句聲都容不下，
呢區仲駛乜討論？
不如叫集體發洩區好了。

車呀文

四個字： 方丈玩哂

無賴階級專政

momomo1997 發表於 2016-4-7 11:57
將共產党的特權手法搬來香港！
天怒人怨！

毛孟靜：我爸爸是梁振英。

以上影片乃youtube提供,與本站無關; 若無法觀看,可查看原網址。

hk3937

PKIP11 發表於 2016-4-7 13:12
回復 hk3937 #27 的帖子

Cannot see any logic at all !!!

as i said there are similarity. incoming to a common law system is equivalent to outgoing from a common law system. if his daughter is going to france, its another story because its continental law. then u have to check the continental law incoming law to verify if the same situation is applicable. i agree it is a superficial observation. but again i ll say its better then just said the ceo is violating law just by this action without any similar descriptive case written in literature. i did try to search for the outgoing procedure law just can't find it. i believe even a legal professional would take a lot of time to find a prove.

peepsen

共產黨員是享有特權的,好多共奴都好羨慕

hk3937

also, if this case is a criminal act, i m sure he would be brought to court for criminal trial.

Peers123

盡顯祖國領導人本色

巨大狗大

68狗條賤種完全係以權謀私，有權用到盡，愛選擇性執法。
以佢永不認錯的精神，又想側側搏淡化件事。
議員一定要繼續追問。

巨大狗大

PKIP11 發表於 2016-4-7 12:34
英國入境物品課稅簡介同話題有乜關係?

Agree。
入境要不要課稅，跟特狗施壓而行李沒安檢之下入禁區，看不出有什麼關係，真係九唔搭八。

PKIP11

回復 hk3937 #33 的帖子

You cannot find it and no one can find it because we are talking about a high ranking government official using his authority to deploy airport operations staff to bring and carry an unaccompanied luggage for his daughter against standard airport security regulations, which is NOT common law, and has NOTHING TO DO, I repeat, NOTHING TO DO whatsoever with custom tariffs you are talking about.  Please also note that incoming means incoming, and outgoing means outgoing.  No existing common law system ever says incoming is equivalent to outgoing.  How can they be equivalent to each other, which in any case is irrelevant with the current subject matter?

hk3937

PKIP11 發表於 2016-4-7 14:06
回復 hk3937 #33 的帖子

You cannot find it and no one can find it because we are talking about a hig ...

i just did a more detailed search and can not find specific literture on outgoing security check. anyhow as i said if ceo is against the law he will be brough before the court. this is hong kong. only if no specific law can take him to court would this case be bough to public discussion like any other case that would hinder his executive roles