破壞op幻想唔好意思
事實係同現有法律有抵觸嘅宗教政府唔承認(唔受法律保障)

現實中大把例外

你介唔介意喺“大把”之中求其抽三四單冇人冇物嘅新興宗教例子出黎比大家開吓眼界?

無人無物

破壞op幻想唔好意思
事實係同現有法律有抵觸嘅宗教政府唔承認(唔受法律保障)

佢唔承認我，司法覆核佢得唔得？

點解基本法/香港法例依啲公開又易查到嘅野你唔自己去睇
btw基本上冇可能成功

自由但不可以傷害Public Interest
以自由做護盾扭曲法律原意係唔會得到保障

破壞op幻想唔好意思
事實係同現有法律有抵觸嘅宗教政府唔承認(唔受法律保障)

佢唔承認我，司法覆核佢得唔得？

點解基本法/香港法例依啲公開又易查到嘅野你唔自己去睇
btw基本上冇可能成功

第三十二條
香港居民有信仰的自由。
香港居民有宗教信仰的自由，有公開傳教和舉行、參加宗教活動的自由。

破壞op幻想唔好意思
事實係同現有法律有抵觸嘅宗教政府唔承認(唔受法律保障)

佢唔承認我，司法覆核佢得唔得？

點解基本法/香港法例依啲公開又易查到嘅野你唔自己去睇
btw基本上冇可能成功

第三十二條
香港居民有信仰的自由。
香港居民有宗教信仰的自由，有公開傳教和舉行、參加宗教活動的自由。

你睇咗佢點先承認你係宗教團體未?

自由但不可以傷害Public Interest
以自由做護盾扭曲法律原意係唔會得到保障

Economist Lok Sang Ho in his Public Policy and the Public Interest (Routledge, 2012, published 2011) argues that the public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, defines the public interest as the "ex ante welfare of the representative individual." [2] Under a thought experiment, by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo ex ante. This approach is "ex ante", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

This approach follows the "veil of ignorance" approach, which was first proposed by John Harsanyi but popularized by John Rawls in his 1971 Theory of Justice.[3] Historically, however, the approach can be traced to John Stuart Mill, who, in his letter to George Grote, explained that "human happiness, even one's own, is in general more successfully pursued by acting on general rules, than by measuring the consequences of each act; and this is still more the case with the general happiness, since any other plan would not only leave everybody uncertain what to expect, but would involve perpetual quarrelling..."[4]

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales argues that applying a detailed definition is likely to result in unintended consequences, in Acting in the Public Interest(2012). Instead, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision making process, including balancing competing interests.

破壞op幻想唔好意思
事實係同現有法律有抵觸嘅宗教政府唔承認(唔受法律保障)

佢唔承認我，司法覆核佢得唔得？

點解基本法/香港法例依啲公開又易查到嘅野你唔自己去睇
btw基本上冇可能成功

第三十二條
香港居民有信仰的自由。
香港居民有宗教信仰的自由，有公開傳教和舉行、參加宗教活動的自由。

你睇咗佢點先承認你係宗教團體未?

我想註冊做宗教團體架

自由但不可以傷害Public Interest
以自由做護盾扭曲法律原意係唔會得到保障

Economist Lok Sang Ho in his Public Policy and the Public Interest (Routledge, 2012, published 2011) argues that the public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, defines the public interest as the "ex ante welfare of the representative individual." [2] Under a thought experiment, by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo ex ante. This approach is "ex ante", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

This approach follows the "veil of ignorance" approach, which was first proposed by John Harsanyi but popularized by John Rawls in his 1971 Theory of Justice.[3] Historically, however, the approach can be traced to John Stuart Mill, who, in his letter to George Grote, explained that "human happiness, even one's own, is in general more successfully pursued by acting on general rules, than by measuring the consequences of each act; and this is still more the case with the general happiness, since any other plan would not only leave everybody uncertain what to expect, but would involve perpetual quarrelling..."[4]

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales argues that applying a detailed definition is likely to result in unintended consequences, in Acting in the Public Interest(2012). Instead, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision making process, including balancing competing interests.

你想Quote 乜鳩
要Quote就Quote Court Case
Quote Common Law Jurisdiction Case

自由但不可以傷害Public Interest
以自由做護盾扭曲法律原意係唔會得到保障

Economist Lok Sang Ho in his Public Policy and the Public Interest (Routledge, 2012, published 2011) argues that the public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, defines the public interest as the "ex ante welfare of the representative individual." [2] Under a thought experiment, by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo ex ante. This approach is "ex ante", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

This approach follows the "veil of ignorance" approach, which was first proposed by John Harsanyi but popularized by John Rawls in his 1971 Theory of Justice.[3] Historically, however, the approach can be traced to John Stuart Mill, who, in his letter to George Grote, explained that "human happiness, even one's own, is in general more successfully pursued by acting on general rules, than by measuring the consequences of each act; and this is still more the case with the general happiness, since any other plan would not only leave everybody uncertain what to expect, but would involve perpetual quarrelling..."[4]

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales argues that applying a detailed definition is likely to result in unintended consequences, in Acting in the Public Interest(2012). Instead, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision making process, including balancing competing interests.

你想Quote 乜鳩
要Quote就Quote Court Case
Quote Common Law Jurisdiction Case

等我揾下先

聽日揾警務署社團事務處傾下先

http://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_tc/11_useful_info/licences/societies.html

喺香港好似會當係邪教咁拉

會唔會入青山？

直頭入小欖啦,仲青山

自由但不可以傷害Public Interest
以自由做護盾扭曲法律原意係唔會得到保障

Economist Lok Sang Ho in his Public Policy and the Public Interest (Routledge, 2012, published 2011) argues that the public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, defines the public interest as the "ex ante welfare of the representative individual." [2] Under a thought experiment, by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo ex ante. This approach is "ex ante", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

This approach follows the "veil of ignorance" approach, which was first proposed by John Harsanyi but popularized by John Rawls in his 1971 Theory of Justice.[3] Historically, however, the approach can be traced to John Stuart Mill, who, in his letter to George Grote, explained that "human happiness, even one's own, is in general more successfully pursued by acting on general rules, than by measuring the consequences of each act; and this is still more the case with the general happiness, since any other plan would not only leave everybody uncertain what to expect, but would involve perpetual quarrelling..."[4]

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales argues that applying a detailed definition is likely to result in unintended consequences, in Acting in the Public Interest(2012). Instead, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision making process, including balancing competing interests.

你想Quote 乜鳩
要Quote就Quote Court Case
Quote Common Law Jurisdiction Case

等我揾下先

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result.jsp?stem=1&txtselectopt=1&selDatabase=JU&isadvsearch=1
努力自己搵下Hong Kong Case

喺香港好似會當係邪教咁拉

會唔會入青山？

直頭入小欖啦,仲青山

我又無害人

自由但不可以傷害Public Interest
以自由做護盾扭曲法律原意係唔會得到保障

Economist Lok Sang Ho in his Public Policy and the Public Interest (Routledge, 2012, published 2011) argues that the public interest must be assessed impartially and, therefore, defines the public interest as the "ex ante welfare of the representative individual." [2] Under a thought experiment, by assuming that there is an equal chance for one to be anyone in society and, thus, could benefit or suffer from a change, the public interest is by definition enhanced whenever that change is preferred to the status quo ex ante. This approach is "ex ante", in the sense that the change is not evaluated after the fact but assessed before the fact without knowing whether one would actually benefit or suffer from it.

This approach follows the "veil of ignorance" approach, which was first proposed by John Harsanyi but popularized by John Rawls in his 1971 Theory of Justice.[3] Historically, however, the approach can be traced to John Stuart Mill, who, in his letter to George Grote, explained that "human happiness, even one's own, is in general more successfully pursued by acting on general rules, than by measuring the consequences of each act; and this is still more the case with the general happiness, since any other plan would not only leave everybody uncertain what to expect, but would involve perpetual quarrelling..."[4]

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales argues that applying a detailed definition is likely to result in unintended consequences, in Acting in the Public Interest(2012). Instead, each circumstance needs to be assessed based on criteria such as the relevant public, wants, and constraints. The key to assessing any public interest decision is transparency of the decision making process, including balancing competing interests.

你想Quote 乜鳩
要Quote就Quote Court Case
Quote Common Law Jurisdiction Case

等我揾下先

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result.jsp?stem=1&txtselectopt=1&selDatabase=JU&isadvsearch=1
努力自己搵下Hong Kong Case

膠登有真正朋友的確好極

5. 註冊社團或豁免註冊社團有否人數限制？

申請註冊須有［red]三名[ /red]幹事的資料。申請人必須填妥幹事的資料，並由幹事簽名。遞交申請表時，須連同幹事的香港身分證副本或其他有效的身分證明文件副本(如幹事並非身分證持有人)，一併交到警察牌照課的社團事務處。幹事須提供電話號碼及個人的通訊地址，而這些地址須與社團地址不同，作記錄及聯絡之用。幹事可提供香港的住址或業務地址。

要搵多兩個人先得

5. 註冊社團或豁免註冊社團有否人數限制？

申請註冊須有［red]三名[ /red]幹事的資料。申請人必須填妥幹事的資料，並由幹事簽名。遞交申請表時，須連同幹事的香港身分證副本或其他有效的身分證明文件副本(如幹事並非身分證持有人)，一併交到警察牌照課的社團事務處。幹事須提供電話號碼及個人的通訊地址，而這些地址須與社團地址不同，作記錄及聯絡之用。幹事可提供香港的住址或業務地址。

要搵多兩個人先得

你D院友

5. 註冊社團或豁免註冊社團有否人數限制？

申請註冊須有［red]三名[ /red]幹事的資料。申請人必須填妥幹事的資料，並由幹事簽名。遞交申請表時，須連同幹事的香港身分證副本或其他有效的身分證明文件副本(如幹事並非身分證持有人)，一併交到警察牌照課的社團事務處。幹事須提供電話號碼及個人的通訊地址，而這些地址須與社團地址不同，作記錄及聯絡之用。幹事可提供香港的住址或業務地址。

要搵多兩個人先得

你D院友

5. 註冊社團或豁免註冊社團有否人數限制？

申請註冊須有［red]三名[ /red]幹事的資料。申請人必須填妥幹事的資料，並由幹事簽名。遞交申請表時，須連同幹事的香港身分證副本或其他有效的身分證明文件副本(如幹事並非身分證持有人)，一併交到警察牌照課的社團事務處。幹事須提供電話號碼及個人的通訊地址，而這些地址須與社團地址不同，作記錄及聯絡之用。幹事可提供香港的住址或業務地址。

要搵多兩個人先得

你D院友

教祖

教祖

請參考 uber 下場

請參考 uber 下場

死都唔驚更加唔驚坐監