What do you think of police handling of the nude photos scandal?
Is this a case of a few unwise young computer technicians stealing their client's property, or did the police get clumsily embroiled in a much wider plot? Is there more than meets the eye with these soft-porn images?
Massive amounts of obscene and indecent material are freely published and distributed on the internet every second.
Sex magazines are sold freely on our street corners.
But in this case the full force of the police was applied at great expense, and young people were wrongfully detained, upsetting Lunar New Year celebrations with their families.
The police owe the public a clear timeline of their knowledge of this case. This is not a photo but a video scandal. A limited number of stills saved from an extensive library of videos were released on the internet.
Did Edison Chen Koon-hei file a complaint of theft of private property - namely of his personal video collection, including those he made of himself and various girlfriends in sexual acts?
If so, why did the police not simply pursue the thief and ask people to stop handling stolen goods? And if it was because they had not received any such claim, then what did they act on? Who contacted them, when and how? Who had access to the videos and when? When did the first pictures appear?
The answers to these questions will determine the extent to which the police have erred in their judgment, wasted public money and made themselves look like fools.
Paul Zimmerman, Causeway Bay
Most people think the way the police dealt with the nude photos scandal was unjust. I partly sympathise with them.
First, someone uploading the nude photos has already broken the law, so the police have a responsibility to investigate. Maybe someone said the 'victims' were celebrities so the police practised favouritism. But this is justified because celebrities are role models to many people, especially teenagers.
If the police had not done anything, the wrong message about celebrities and sex may have been implanted in the minds of youngsters. This would only bring harm to society. There was a need for the police to search for and arrest the suspects quickly and publicly.
Cindy Tam, Kwun Tong
Should repeat animal abusers be barred from owning pets?
From my perspective, animal abusers who commit a crime for the first time should be given the chance to turn over a new leaf. However, reoffenders should be barred from owning pets for a period, like drivers who have violated traffic regulations. During this period of time, the animal abusers should think seriously about their responsibilities and whether they are suited to keeping pets.
We should always bear in mind that pets are living creatures and we should not tolerate any animal cruelty.
Leung Pui-ki, Tseung Kwan O
Animal abuse is absolutely despicable. Abusers don't take life seriously and abuse their pets as they wish. There is no doubt they lack a sense of responsibility and deserve to be punished.
However, barring them from owning pets does not seem to be a practical policy. For one thing, it is hard to make sure that they do not own any pets. Second, depriving people of the right to own pets is not only an extreme way to go, it also fails to solve the crux of the problem. It would be more effective to educate them or identify their psychological problems. Third, it has no deterrent effect. A more valid solution is to impose tougher penalties.
Katie Wong, Kwun Tong