He was very well written and easy to understand. Unlike other blogs I’ve read that are not really good

Today owning a new and trendy looking Louis Vuitton outlet are not only meant for the wealthy people. These are now made luxurious and affordable borse louis vuitton to reach out to every budget and range.

your post is really good i really like your post nice buddy thanks
Buy Dissertations

I liked this post very much as it has helped me a lot in my research and is quite interesting as well. Thank you for sharing this information with us
MBA Dissertation Online

Thank you for sharing this information. The information was very helpful and saved a lot of my time.

Writing a Dissertation | Dissertation Proposal | Buy Dissertation

There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, learning from failure. So read this blog and get success.

城大公關主管劣行多端
From 淫賤週刊受害者 posted on UGC Forum 19-07-2010 [18:51:13]:
城大公關主管劣行多端部份報導手法比一老師所講下流十倍，破壞無辜者名聲。許多受害人啞忍至今。一所大學濫用教育經費聘請如此人渣。我們要求教資會處罰城大經手人。下面記錄俾大家評理。
星期六, 六月 16, 2007
來函照登：回應快週刊的報導手法
本人從全港多間報攤和便利店，得悉快週刊的封面圖文。部分封面圖文更給本人留下深刻的印象，不吐不快。現抽空傳真此篇拙作，說出自己對快週刊的感受。
快週刊第四六零期 的時事版封面專輯〈俾仔姦〉，與第四四九期封面話題〈港姐雞姦案 揭十萬人玩SM〉，俱借助封面圖文的彰顯性，報導一些於本港發生的性暴力和性 (行為) 罪行。此舉既讓快週刊自成一格，亦驅使讀者甚至是路人，和逗留於書報攤或便利店的同胞，瞬間得悉有關報導與背後的肇事因果，無需細看內文、購買週刊。當然，有的讀者當然加以細閱或購買，滿足其對那些醜聞報導和肇事女性的好奇心。
對不起。快週刊的確可享用編輯自主、資訊自由去發佈每周訊息。難道就可以堂而皇之地追述〈俾仔姦〉、〈港姐雞姦案〉等性暴力禍害如何發生嗎？難道便可以開門見山地描述犯人如何強暴受害者，受害者又如何遭受傷害、事後過得怎麼樣？自由是指人可免受阻礙、逼迫、滋擾、傷害，還可免受昔日危難、傷痛、罪孽，與它們所帶來的恐懼、不安與煎熬。為何快週刊沒想到自己的上述報導，早已忽視受虐者事後至今對其身心自由的需要，卻把其痛苦和身心障礙當作封面主題，引人注目？這種植根於他人傷痛的編輯自主與媒體作品，還可成為言論自由、新聞自由等現代文明與開明風尚的實證嗎？
筆者更難以接受快週刊的突出推論：把一篇〈港姐雞姦案〉案情報導，附上部分女子的緊身衣著形象、煽情演繹，推論出「全港有十萬人玩SM」！把有關案件添上具爭議的字眼，滿口性行為情節、濫交意識、女性「性開放」態度云云，早已不堪入目，還教人擔憂會使到受害事主、青少年誤解真正自由的詮釋。如此案情訊息為何可與SM行徑相題並論？它們又為何可讓快週刊「見微知著」，推論有為數不少的同胞玩過 SM？當中有充分的理據、真相解釋嗎？整個事態如此談及性徵，對正處於性徵發育期的青少年有益嗎？
不可忘記，您我昔日度過了青春期——身心持續發育、性徵和兩性間情感關係含苞待放之時。性徵豈可純粹代表女子性感誘人的形象、行為與煽情模樣，包括快週刊所描述的性虐「遊戲」、受虐演繹和感官刺激？更不可忘記，自己的言行、兩性觀念、情感流露，總是有機會給當今青少年、明日新一代 (現今仍是兒童) 留意，仿照您我的經歷與兩性關係觀念，去面對青春期，對待自己與異性的。作為大眾媒體、社會公民的一分子，快週刊必須慎重調校編輯方針，確保自己與媒體生態、訊息環境，亦可為社會作出承擔，讓各類媒體和讀者亦能保障青少年健康成長，維護兩性和諧及人性健全。祝 編安，
在職男青年 W.M.IP 上
at 1:54 下午

The new pr head is a real disgrace. Who hired him? The selection committee should be held accountable for this recruitment. Is hiring him part of the management’s grand plan to correct or prevent more negative publicity from occuring in the future? Does the management mean what it professed to build a structure to “ensure accountability at all levels”? (please refer to strategic plan 2010-2015)

More background has been revealed on the UGC Higher Ecucation Forum. http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/forum/forum.htm

From 一老師 posted on UGC Higher Education Forun 18-07-2010 [20:33:51]:

城大新聘的公關主管經手許多病態的“故仔”，姦淫虜掠外仲有誇大聳動打擊社會穩定的報道，引起教育界公憤嚴禁學生閱讀。此君在城大返工的消息已不脛而走，知情的老師勸阻學生申請城大。有關討論和評價好多，下文係其中之一。
請教資會調查審核城大用人準則。

星期五, 七月 22, 2005
唯恐天下不亂的周刊

昨天有位老師朋友怒氣沖沖e-mail過來，對於剛出版的快周刊很有意見，而且更將封面scan了，讓各位一睹為快。

今期出版的快周刊，封面用了『香港大鑊』四個紅色大字做標題，中間寫著『絕密情報／過萬暴民殺入』。背景圖案是三個拿著棍向前打的男人，最前的一支棍更打至爆開；下方是一排軍人，站在一地火堆中與類似示威者的群體對恃。不錯，說的就是十二月的世貿會議。

內 文主要圍繞幾點：一，世貿來港的示威者均為暴民，打算在港『開戰』，計劃在香港搞破壞；二，示威者（暴民）會用暴力、自殺、放火掟石等手法，將會造成巨大 經濟損失；三，許仕仁及政府高官嚴陣以待，必要時會要求解放軍『平暴』；四，唐英年『冇咁大個頭硬要戴咁大頂帽』，今次惹出大頭佛。

內頁選用的相片，凡有關示威者的，皆甚有六四清場feel，不是火焰熊熊，便是血流披面。整篇報導均基於『示威者都是暴民』的假設而作，描繪出一個『世貿示威＝暴動』的圖像，訴諸恐懼，妖魔化示威者；而對於示威者為何要示威、世貿本身造成的不公平、貧窮等問題，輕輕帶過。

印像中快周刊以中產雜誌自居，可是這種立場偏頗、視野狹隘、煽動恐懼的報導，只能算是唯恐天下不亂，我就不信能迎合中產的口味！http://lamfaifred.blogspot.com/2005/07/blog-post_22.html

《573期》《快周刊》封面故事:女藝人大恐慌 娛圈援交鐵竇曝光

陳煒 曬胸抗抑鬱 快週刊 358期 (9P) 送蔡慧敏換衫相曝光

worse than disgraceful
From the district judge posted on UGC Forum, 16-07-2010

Not long ago, CityU President wrote a letter of complaint to the Staff Association Executive Committee members. As it is not enough intimidation, he copied the letter to all their line managers. Recently the CAO, in his emails to the Association, also demanded to know “whether the Executive Committee of the Staff Association was aware of the content of the EBS….” with a clear intention to intimidate and divide and rule.

The President uses his name tactically. His name is not on many documents where it is expected, such as important appointments (in the case of public relations director and deputy director) and announcement of major setback (in the case of UGC rejection to the vet school proposal). However, he decided to put his name on the above-mentioned letter, just to make it very clear to all the line managers what is politically correct at CityU.

If the SAEC members did not get the message, the CityU line managers certainly did. Sadly, it is the case with our colleague at the library who got “discontinued”. Many colleagues know she has done good work there.

Today it’s her. Tomorrow it’s us. Let’s unite behind the Association.

Much More Serious than Gagging Survey Results
From Knight George posted on UGC Forum 15-07-2010 [19:56:37]:

More serious than gagging president’s survey results, a long-serving CityU Library staff was unfairly fired (technically, her contract has not been renewed by management) recently.
The staff has devoted the prime time of her life in conscientiously serving CityU staff and students. In the past 14 years, with good performance, her contracts have been successfully renewed.
Then she made a mistake by joining the Executive Committee of the CityU Staff Association last year.
Her contract was refused to be renewed by the management last month. When she asked why, the management listed some very ridiculous reasons, e.g., talking to a colleague during office hour to justify their decision.
It is a clear unfair dismissal case, so the lady filed a dispute in Labour Tribunal for justice. Guess what? CityU hired the best law firm to fight against her. Well, if the president or the CAO use their own cash to shut the staff up, we cannot stop them. But they are using taxpayer’s monies. UGC and all taxpayers have the right to intervene this nonsense.
Apart from misuse of public fund, CityU management is brutally harassing a labour union member and unfairly dismiss a loyal and competent staff.
All labour unions locally and internationally should stop CityU management from prejudicing against union member.

An Open Letter to Chairman Leung
From CityU Instructors posted on 12-07-2010 [21:14:12]:

Chairman Leung,

In your opening remarks at the 25th anniversary banquet last December, you proposed 2 principles to guide how we conduct work at City University of Hong Kong in order to ensure tax-payers money and donations are put to use effectively. We remember reading your eloquent speech as we were not important enough to be invited to the banquet after teaching many years at CityU.

Allow us to refresh the memory: your 2 guiding principles are “value-for-money” and “fit-for-purpose”. Under this premise, we’d like to ask the following questions:

1) Do you consider the President’s service, or rather his disservice, to the university and to Hong Kong good “value-for-money” for Hong Kong tax payers and CityU donors? Mind you, the money we talk about here is the money the President squanders on top of the salary he commands.

2) What “purpose” does hiring an unscrupulous scandalmonger “fit” for? Does it benefit the university’s image? Or does it serve the top management’s ulterior motives, such as protecting their names, justifying wrongful deeds, promoting misled propositions and quelling the dissidents?

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to your actions implementing the 2 guiding principles.

Yours truly,

CityU Instructors

From PR posted on 12-07-2010 [00:48:03]:

The University appointed a guy called Kun Ching chung to effectively head their Communications Office. A simple Google search reveals that he seems to have no background in education or anything even remotely related to that. In fact, his claim to fame seem to be be his involvement in exposing the Edison Chen sex scandal.

Great move CityU!!!

From PoorU posted on 12-07-2010 [00:51:19]:

When the CityU management announced the appointments of the heads of public relations earlier this month, the statement was issued in the name of the Human Resources instead of the President. The announcement only very briefly mentioned that Mr. Kun Ching-chung were to join the university, without a word of his profession qualification and experience as if they were trying to hide it.

In retrospect, it was the President trying to distance himself from this key appointment. It is safe to say that the management was aware of what Mr. Kun is capable of. They hired him mainly to employ his unscrupulous tactics to smear and tackle “the resistance”. However if anything goes wrong, they can easily assign the blame to the Human Resources. This practice has become a behavioral pattern typical of CityU management .

A quick online check will shed light on the new recruit. Take a glance at the “Express Weekly” next time you go pass a roadside news-stand, see for yourself.

When I read the post written by “student”, I had mixed feeling. On one hand, “student” so incisively revealed the dark side of SLW in CityU. For any university to grow, it must develop its professional programs in Law, Business, and Medical (if financially feasible). Certainly, the development of Science and Engineering programs is equally important as long as these programs do not just produce positivists. On the other hand, the English writing of “student” is definitely sub-par and matches the same level of the Dean’s message in CoB. I think this is a sad indicator of the deteriorating teaching and learning quality in CityU.

God Bless CityU!

The message posted by ‘student’ has been removed from the UGC website!!