不同的示威群體,自己為自己做個標誌: i totally agree with you on this for organisations
but most of us are not from/do not believe in any formal organisations
most of us were 自發市民

i will certainly try and 大喊"拍友/記者先行開啲先." if i can and if its appropriate
but then i think if we need to do this whenever there is danger, then 拍友/記者 will never come close

also, if some 拍友/記者 voluntarily come over (as they did on 1/1), its good to have them. 拍友/記者 serve as a some sort of protection for activists as well - the police show way less retrain if there are no 拍友/記者.

i think 拍友/記者 are most adults who can judge for themselves
and for the a lot of them, the more dangerous the situation, the more they feel like they want to/should stay
thats what it means to be a 拍友/記者, right?

just want to stress that

(1) it wasn't like we started some riot on the spot
some people that pushed and ran over to the other side, some didn't
i think those who came over to the other side made a decision and i think most people are not so stupid that they can't even assess the physical and legal risks, which i think were pretty obvious

(2) in a chaotic situation as such, it's real hard for protesters to always say: "拍友/記者 please be careful" as well as trying to do everything else incld. protecting themselves as much as they can at the same time

i've hardly ever tried to defend myself this hard
but this time, it's not just about me
i think a lot of people are really asking so much of young activists (or activists in general) and i'm only one of the many many many out there

of course, we will try and try and try and just be.. better? and i myself at least am grateful for the advise

「推開鐵馬的是我們，領工(功)就是他們」

這一句很有趣......到底「我們」是誰？又要去領什麼「功」？

香港的民主抗爭是不是一場論功行賞的遊戲？如果「我們」心中無「功」，只為對抗極權，哪個入鏡哪個指揮又有何干？

推開鐵馬的自發市民實在功不可沒，所以我將會再進一步，在一個沒有鎂光燈的晚上，推開中聯辦的正門，高呼結束一黨專政，繼而榮登民主鬥士榜第一位，屆時社民連及各自發市民請勿抽水。

Ms. Chan, as an ordinary HK citizen who's been following the events of Jan 1st, I just have one question for you. Why is it that you and your colleagues, as a group of activists who are by definition (and by your own admission) only concerned about the socio-political issues at hand, see the need to go into such (aggressive) depth on the question of who was on air, who had media attention, and who was deemed to be responsible for what happened that day?

I am sure that your privileged education will have taught you that there are differences between political parties and political activists. Political parties have one main raison de tat, and that is to gain political power. Read any literature on party theory and you will undoubtedly come across this. On their way to acquiring power, parties are involved in an interactive and responsive process with the people, since political power lies in either the actual votes (in democracies) of the people, or at least the support and recognition of the people. Although I am highly skeptical about whether LSD had intentionally siezed your group's spotlight, as I am still inclined to believe that what they did was more out of concern for your safety than anything else, I must point out that even if media attention did matter highly to LSD, it is obvious that as a political party, this is given (just as how any other political party functions). Political activists, on the other hand, at least the ones I know of and respect - environmental groups, human rights groups, etc - are formed behind one rationale - to advance whatever cause they advocate. Whoever stands next to the activist should matter not as long as he/she is waving the same banner. My problem with the protests from you and your group is this - if you are really supporters certain political/social causes, why would you mind the fact that somebody else is on TV? And if you are really an advancer of the socio-political causes that you claim to believe in, why does it matter who gets credit and who doesn't? (Assuming that responsibility is credit. Had the events of Jan 1st turned ugly in the end, LSD would be condemned and surely penalized. Such is the thin line between credit and blame.)

You should also note that when addressing LSD, you are actually addressing a political party led by some of the most experienced, most senior and most respected leaders of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. Some respect may seem to be called for. You are young (and I am also around the same age as you) and you think you are the fresh blood that HK's political arena desperately needs. I have no problem with that. But you might want to bear in mind that we, and all those after us, stand on the shoulders of those before us. Even if you do not see them as teachers from whom you may learn and upon whom you may improve (which is what I would think is the more appropriate attitude), at least, do show some respect. LSD and its leaders really don't need to compete for the spotlight with you. Most of them became famous for their causes before you, your colleagues, and I were even born.

（但推開鐵馬的是我們，領功就是他們）呢個講法都好有問題，如果真係因此發生不能挽回的嚴重事情，你估呢隻鑊又會搵邊個來孭？當然會係社民連的大佬輩啦！你估你幾位年青人孭得起咩！你要孭果Ｄ同社民連有仇的傳媒都唔會咁報導啦！下話！

我又唔係咁同意,因為到時個個示威組織一定會自己出來澄清,
好似今次咁都係批評話"某一些甚麼甚麼人名或(個別)的示威人士.
好似沒有甚麼組織話同自己有關,即是此事與我無關.

如果真係有事起來,就更不在話下.

又黎啲甘問題,著唔著甚麼顏色衣服.

民主民主由人民"自己作主".

唉!

----------------
既然多口,就講多幾句.

我沒有參加遊行,不過從新聞上看見鐡馬的圍欄離大樓門口還有一個很遠的距離.
示威人士有人要求接近一些是很合理的要求,因為他們並不是要衝入大樓.
那麼警方有甚麼的理由拒絕?只是一貫空範的公安安全條例理由等等,
這並不是一個合理的理由能夠令人接受,實質是借用一種空範詞意剝削市民的權利的表示,
當合理的要求得不到接受,而又得不到合理的拒絕理由.
情況下示威人士可做的選擇不多,一是坐下來堅持對抗直至被警察抬走,二是主動以更具體行動反抗表示不滿,及否定這樣獨裁式的管制.

在一個示威行動中今天和昔日有些不同,有更多不同的示威群體出現,
於是各有不同的行動,要求表達.
這是很平常的事.

最後警方只批准指定二十名示威人士代表進入,但是對於其他的示威者,他們未必是滿意這樣的安排.
一種對抗在當前所有人的前面,即在每個人的時刻中,大家都有一種共同或自己表達自己的權利表達.
在即時間這樣的代表,未能滿意一些個人表達權利的慾望,
更何況二十名代表都不是當時示威人士一人一票選舉出來的.

警方的做法就是典型的所謂香港管制式的民主自由.

如果香港人經常說中國大陸的警察是如何的獨裁.
今次香港警方的行動和中國大陸都差不遠,只是香港警察還缺少有一條"23條".

這是本來是一件普通衝撞的事件,由於警方人數超現實的過多,造成更大機會的衝突場面.
一個幾百人及一層層鐡馬嚴陣以待的陣勢,想表示甚麼?
將示威人士限制在很遠的地方,又想表示甚麼?
難道示威人士要到天安門廣場示威,但只準他們在天安門的外圍是合理.
用幾百旦克包圍示威人士是善意的對待.

還有傳媒將事件誇大,一件普通的衝撞事件,變成一個戰場.
示威人士難道有放火燒車嗎?
如果普通衝撞是戰場,
為什麼不去說當年世貿是一場連綿的戰場.

我想起有幾位自發的綱民去民主黨門外下跪,要求他們投五區.
事後他們的做法受到不同的批評.
情況亦好像今次一些人的做法,又有人有不同的看法批評.
批評總不能免,但批評總批評,對事不要對人,出侮辱性的話.
亦尊重各人有個人不同的表達自由.
政黨有政黨的策略,市民有自己表達要求的方式.
沒有甚麼不對.

我所說跟甚麼"抽水"都沒有關係,只是看到甚麼說甚麼的個人看法.

民主民主由人民"自己作主".

.
韋言 兄，隊頭的就如你所說「平時不到45分鐘內可完成的行程, 要整整一個半小時才行完.」，但隊尾的卻是走了三個多小時。

看到很多人，在兩時多已到達，在隊尾等出發，默默的等，為的就是要表達自已所想的，很感動！
.