老友四號

原帖由 katamari 於 2009-3-5 19:45 發表


同意，相對講就算國泰係錯，員工都認錯，冇人話阿嬸係岩喎。更何況條友拍片時真係因為阿嬸做錯事而替天行道嗎？條片根本係有恥笑成分啦！

员工認錯,唔代表佢真心認錯,因為如果佢唔認,分分鐘连份工都冇埋.(呢D又係強權勝過公義嘅明証哀哉！)

老夫 一D都唔覺得有恥笑成分喎(因為係百分百客觀纪录片),本來係十分嚴肅嘅反面教材

教導我哋成年人冇論男女有事慢慢講,總有解决嘅辦法.唔需要咁刁人現眼,醜態百出(一D都唔好笑).

但如今卻係變咗只要唔怕醜;夠爛就 YOU CAN GET WHAT U WANT !

Ultraman

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 20:41 發表
咁請教兩位明理之人 机場亞嬸 嘅行為係啱定錯先？

You really want to know right or wrong?
The lady getting mad in a public area (just screaming and lying on the floor) without physically hurting another, you can easily find it online if she was breaking any law or committing any illegal matter. As I said, you can seek for civil action if you like, yet I doubt what should you sue her.

老夫 则認为亞嬸錯在先,国泰 管理層錯在後,點解:因为佢哋立場軟弱,为咗息事寧人犧牲员工

將錯為啱.假如 老夫 係当日嘅 国泰 員工亦會眏低当日嘅情况,费事第日亞嬸投訴時口同鼻拗。

Can you find any staff handbook from any company that, the bosses allow their employees do personal affair (going to washroom kind of stuff is excluded) at work? The staff taping the video and didn't treat it as a official use but personal one, this action was not enough to charge him/her committed a crime and send to jail, but of course from the employer's POV, this action was not allowed at work duty and definitely not encouraged.
The apology and the compensation made was not only to please the lady (or media), but also gave a warning tone to all other staffs, let them know this kind of issues could be serious and warn them better not to do it again.

再者如果你哋有见過一D示威場面,你哋都會见到有警察眏VIEDO.如果照你哋所講佢哋咪喺喥浪費

時間同资源.因為1:不能作呈堂証物(因為警察眏警察及示威者).2:分分鐘俾示威者反告侵犯私瘾.

請問兩位D差佬明知冇用點解佢哋仲要眏呢？

再者 老夫 亦唔認同該国泰員工將該段影片上網是不当行為,(假定是該名員工所為)因為1:整件事

件發生在公眾地方.2:對方是成年人要為自已的行為負責及承擔後果.正如拍芝曰:打就企定.而且

該名員工並沒有加上任何主觀的意见,只是客觀的紀銾一切而已.

Did the cops who taped the video post them on youtube or any other public forum for personal use? Or do you know they're taping it for their own interest, or was ordered by their head government?
Moreover, such as official press persons have rights to photograph and video anythings and post them on official medias for press purpose, and yes, they don't need to get your agreement and they won't be charged.
You think the Cathy case was anything comparative to the above situations?

Ultraman

原帖由 老友四號 於 2009-3-5 21:06 發表


但如今卻係變咗只要唔怕醜;夠爛就 YOU CAN GET WHAT U WANT !

Hello...? Did you read me? You still didn't get it right.
If the Cathy staff has not taped the video, Cathy wouldn't need to apologize and compensate the lady. NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU THINK!
Well, I'm not going to tell you again anyways. I'll let your brain stuck.

mcjohnjohn

四號, 唔好花時間同Ultraman 糾纏喇, 佢係辯論既能手, 唔做律師既話真係浪費左佢天賦既才華.

大C姐

老實講﹐she should be ashamed of herself﹐大庭廣眾影響其他旅客。大佬呀﹐係人都知機場呢D地方有camera啦﹐就算無人專登影﹐你都會有機會俾人拍底啦。

不過我又唔鼓勵D人成日坐車偷拍其他乘客放上youtube。

-- 近期大熱大C姐

siumaibb

如果影果個唔係國泰員工？如果條片無上新聞？如果亞嬸無去投訴？你又會點睇？
究竟你覺影人果個係侵犯私隱定唔尊重客人？你自己諗諗

BiscottiGelato

Further thinking about this...
The Auntie scream and yell is not 'wrong' per say and doesn't affect anyone, nor cause anyone harm or damage.

HOWEVER
The fact that this was recorded and disbributed have caused suffering for this Auntie (massive public humiliation, including people who have laughed at her and called her names in this very thread), the Auntie can demand for compensation for the damaged cause and for the unnecassary pain that she has to endure.

The thing is, the intention of filming the video, or distributing the video, is irrelevant. They can be innocent with no intent to laugh at it, and just filming it for documentary reasons. However in reality, the act of filiming it was totally unnecassary (it's not really doing the world any better other than giving people a laugh... is it?), and because of this, this has caused unnecassary damage. It's just like you are driving on the road without intent to crash, but you crashed into someone else's car anyways. Since you are the person at fault, you are responsible for repaying the damage (via insurance premium hikes usually). Same thing.

With that, it's just a matter of whose responsible for her suffering and thus should also be repaying compensation for the damaged caused. It might be the one videoing it, it might be the one distributing it, it can be argued in many ways. However Cathay chose to represent for the person videoing it and take this responsibility for public relation reasons. Naturally then, Cathay would have to repaying the Auntie on behalf of the person videoing it. I think this is completely understandable.

[ 本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2009-3-5 23:37 編輯 ]

katamari

原帖由 大C姐 於 2009-3-5 21:52 發表
老實講﹐she should be ashamed of herself﹐大庭廣眾影響其他旅客。大佬呀﹐係人都知機場呢D地方有camera啦﹐就算無人專登影﹐你都會有機會俾人拍底啦。

不過我又唔鼓勵D人成日坐車偷拍其他乘客放上youtube。

-- 近期大熱大 ...

C姐我同意你的說法

katamari

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2009-3-5 21:46 發表
四號, 唔好花時間同Ultraman 糾纏喇, 佢係辯論既能手, 唔做律師既話真係浪費左佢天賦既才華.

你好鍾意做中間人架？條條thread都見到你喎，hi!

katamari

原帖由 siumaibb 於 2009-3-5 22:09 發表
如果影果個唔係國泰員工？如果條片無上新聞？如果亞嬸無去投訴？你又會點睇？
究竟你覺影人果個係侵犯私隱定唔尊重客人？你自己諗諗

都話到你有日做得到人老細你就明咯，你唔係高層的話唔明係冇問題架！