Surely, they should have been prepared to compromise - half a loaf is better than no bread - to give Hong Kong more democracy than we have today.

However, they would not compromise and so we will not get more democracy in Hong Kong than we have today.

Given this, what they should now be doing is talking to Beijing to try to get the best possible deal for Hong Kong, as the British did in the latter part of the negotiations with China, which led to the Joint Declaration of 1984.

The students, academics and politicians continue the endless debate on the merits or otherwise of the Occupy Central movement.

Meanwhile, I wonder if any of them have given the slightest thought to the reality that many buildings in Central contain not just "fat cat" businessmen but also multiple medical practices, including a great number that are not just consulting rooms but which carry out essential clinical services such as laboratory tests and also provide outpatient chemotherapy for cancer patients.

Central Building, which presumably will fit right into the middle of the planned protests, contains floor after floor of medical practices, where patients young and old visit for life-preserving medical support. Princes Building and Melbourne Plaza are two others that I know of.

Having just spent the best part of four months paying weekly visits to a medical practice in Central Building accompanying my wife for her chemo treatments, I wonder just how peaceful my reaction would have been had we been prevented from gaining access to these life-supporting treatments because of civil disobedience in the surrounding area.

The promoters of Occupy Central are doing no one a service when they prevent access to vital medical services.

Occupy Central protesters should occupy the central business district.

It sends a strong message to the governments in Hong Kong and Beijing that there is strong public opposition to what the central government is proposing for the 2017 election of chief executive.

I hope that through these protests, the leadership in Beijing can be persuaded eventually to make the right decision. Hopefully, other citizens will also be brought round to understanding that universal suffrage is essential for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections of 2020.

Although the protests will disrupt the financial district, fighting for real democracy is more important.

Of course there must be certain non-negotiable items - safeguards. It cannot be a carte blanche.

At least, with so many secessionists lurking in the wings, there must be a screening mechanism - the nomination committee, which is anathema to the rabble rousers.

Her "perfectly viable" proposals are not perfectly viable if they stand to let in, for instances, these secessionists.

The nomination committee has been in the Basic Law since day one and so the leaders in Beijing are not twisting the law to require there to be one.

In the meantime, the rabble-rousers like Benny Tai Yiu-ting say that with the NPC Standing Committee sticking to the support threshold requirement of 50 per cent of the members of the nominating committee, thus resulting in the approved proposal falling short of international standards, they will go ahead with Occupy Central.

They have said from the beginning that the protests will involve blocking main roads in Central.

Well, go right ahead. When it is all said and done, they will be "fixed". By that I mean at least requiring them and their aspiring candidates to declare their nationality.

The People's Republic of China does not accept dual nationality, and nationality is a "one country" issue where Beijing calls the shots.

In accordance with international standards, foreign nationals are not allowed to run for the chief executive position.

In the United States, even citizens who are first-generation immigrants are not allowed to run for president (for example, German-born Henry Kissinger).

I do not agree with pan-democratic groups that Occupy Central is the right way to try and influence the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to shift its stand on the 2017 election of chief executive.

The Standing Committee is not going to bend to disobedient protests. Any proposal which departs from the Basic Law will not lead to universal suffrage.

The nomination process put forward by the pan-democrats for the 2017 election is not feasible and will never be accepted by the central government. If they stick to their proposals, we will not have universal suffrage in 2017 and the people of Hong Kong will be disappointed. According to the Basic Law, the candidates for chief executive will be nominated by a nominating committee that is "broadly representative".

We need to take into consideration different views from society and find an acceptable and feasible solution. After achieving universal suffrage, we may continue to consider how best to enhance the system in the future.

What we need to do now is to move forward and try to strike the right balance and come to the right decision.

I am concerned about the increase to breaches of security on mobile phones.

Leakages of private information on the internet are becoming a serious problem, with more people than ever before purchasing smartphones.

Too often, people who use mobile phones do not appreciate the importance of protecting their personal information online.

As modern technology becomes more advanced, there is a wide variety of devices with ever more complicated functions.

People do not just use mobile phones to communicate with each other, but also use them for work. But, just like an ordinary personal computer, these phones are vulnerable to hackers.

Therefore, it is important for people to protect their personal information.

They need to set passwords so that even if the phone is stolen, it is locked and thieves cannot use it.

They also need to turn off functions on the phone when they are not in use and are not needed.

There is a lot of anti-virus technology on the market, so smartphone owners should check out which will be the most suitable for them.

Obviously people want the technology they use to deliver them the services they require as quickly as possible, but they have to strike the right balance and ensure that their mobile phones and other devices remain as secure as possible so that important information is not stolen.

The MTR Corporation has to work harder at dealing more effectively with incidents such as the dog that got onto the tracks and was later killed by a train.

Videos showed staff trying to deal with the incident and failing. As a consequence, the dog remained on the tracks and died shortly afterwards.

The MTR staff trying to help the dog did not seem to make much effort and gave up after a relatively short period of time. One member of staff appeared to return to the platform after less then a minute.

I do not think that is acceptable. They actually appeared to be apprehensive about trying to save this stray dog.

How would they have dealt with a more serious incident say, for example, an accident involving passengers?

The MTR is one of the most popular means of transport in Hong Kong. Its staff should be properly trained to be able to handle any emergency correctly and speedily.

The corporation must ensure its staff are given the right training so they can deal with incidents.