【毋忘831太子站一週年】本台記者單獨採訪 期間被警方票控

（Please scroll down for English Version）

網民於本日（30日）發起旺角「毋忘831太子站一週年」活動，本台記者於朗豪坊採訪時被警方以違反「限聚令」為由票控。

約下午6時，防暴警察於朗豪坊麥當勞外截查數名市民。本台記者在約10-15米距離外觀察現場情況期間，被另一隊警員包圍及檢查身分證。一名傳媒聯絡組警員得悉本台記者身份後，曾允許記者離開，惟本台記者其後被另一名警員截停及再次帶回原本的位置進行搜查。據本台記者所述，警方於攔截期間曾拒絕在場媒體採訪及拍攝，本台記者亦在警員脅逼下關閉其攝影器材。於歷時45分鐘的搜查期間，本台記者再次被要求檢查身分證及登記身份，經過搜身後才被告知違反限聚令，最後於朗豪坊NARS外被票控。

本台記者當時身穿反光衣並佩戴記者證，亦正履行記者職責──記錄現場情況，理應不受限聚令規管（599G附表1豁免羣組聚集：4. 在工作地點為工作而進行的羣組聚集）。該記者亦單獨進行採訪，身邊只有另一名記者進行採訪工作，並不符合群組聚集的定義，警方並沒有合理的票控理由。

本台強烈譴責警方阻礙採訪自由。本台必須重申，當時記者正履行其職責，警方根本沒有合理理由票控記者。根據香港記者協會聲明，採訪及新聞自由均受《基本法》第 27 條、《基本法》第 39 條訂明的《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第 19(2) 條及《香港人權法案》保障。「採訪」本身是一種公民權利，並非特定資格。不論記者的身份是學生、義工或是受僱於傳媒機構，均有權進行採訪。

【One year anniversary of the 8.31 Attack at Prince Edward Station】 While reporting by himself, Campus TV's reporter was issued a penalty ticket.

Netizens called for commemorating the one year anniversary of the 8.31 Attack at Prince Edward Station today (30/8). Campus TV's reporter was issued a penalty ticket for violating the group gathering restriction by the police.

At around 6 pm, police stopped and searched several citizens outside of McDonald’s in Langham Place. While observing the scene at a distance of around 10-15 meters, Campus TV’s reporter was encircled by the police and had his ID card checked. An officer from the Police Public Relations Branch allowed and accompanied our reporter to leave after learning about his identity. Yet, our reporter was intercepted by another PPRB officer and ordered to return to the original area where a search was conducted. According to our reporter, the police did not allow reporters who were present to film or report during the interception. Our reporter was coerced to shut down his camera. In the 45 minutes of interception, our reporter had once again had his identity card checked and registered. Only after being searched was our reporter informed of violating the group gathering restriction, he was issued a penalty ticket outside of NARS in Langham Place at last.

Our reporter was wearing a reflective vest and a press card at that time. Fulfilling the duties of a reporter — reporting the scene — should under no circumstances be regulated by the group gathering restriction. (Exempted group gatherings from Schedule 1 of Cap. 599G: 4. Group gathering at a place of work for the purposes of work) Our reporter was also carrying out his work alone and only had one reporter beside him, which did not meet the definition of a group gathering. Hence, there is no justifiable reason for the police to penalize him.

Campus TV strongly condemns the police’s interference in press freedom, and hereby reiterates that our reporter was fulfilling his duties. The police therefore have no justifiable reason to penalise him. According to a statement from HKJA, the freedom of the press and media’s freedom of reporting are guaranteed by Article 7 of the Basic Law, Article 19(2) of “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” prescribed by Article 39 of the Basic Law and the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”. News reporting in itself is a form of civil rights instead of a special qualification. Whether a reporter’s identity is a student, a volunteer, or an employee of a media organization, they have the right to report news.

#國際戰線【黃之鋒x鄺頌晴｜投稿《華盛頓郵報》：北京立法宣告「一國兩制」死亡】

Oped of Joshua Wong & Glacier Kwong in Washington Post: This is the final nail in the coffin for Hong Kong’s autonomy (Scroll down for English)

《港版國安法》從醞釀到正式宣佈，至今只是不夠一個星期的時間，形勢相當緊迫與嚴峻，爭取國際盟友反對惡法已是爭分奪秒的事情。當路透社報道白宮消息人士表明考慮制裁，當下國際戰線手足必然會推波助瀾，我亦繼昨晚在英國《獨立報》發表文章後，與鄺頌晴在《華盛頓郵報》發表文章，爭取西方政界關注，切實執行對香港官員制裁。

同時，有幾句說話想講。

就係想多謝俾我拖咗落水一齊寫文夾專欄嘅鄺頌晴，要知道自從國安法宣佈左之後，呢個唔知有冇追溯期嘅惡法，根本就能夠隨時以言入罪，分分鐘呢篇外媒投稿文章，都能夠成為所謂叛國或者顛覆國家嘅證據。

無錯，國際戰線嘅成本係提高左唔少，但家陣香港都去到存亡號召嘅境地，別無他選都只能夠頂硬上。所以，無論有無同我合作，取態定位一唔一樣，甚至我認唔認識都好，依家仲會開樣開名，所謂「喺枱面上」嘅國際戰線手足，希望大家都可以俾多啲鼓勵佢哋每一位。

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/24/this-is-final-nail-coffin-hong-kongs-autonomy/

————————————————

中國全國人民代表大會（全國人大）公布了一份與香港《國安法》相關的決定草案，聲稱有關草案可以「建立健全的法律制度和執行機制」，以及「維護香港特別行政區的國家安全」。一旦通過，此決定草案將授權全國人大常委會，在完全繞過香港本地立法程序的情況下，直接在香港實施惡法。字面上，《國安法》的目的是禁止任何分裂國家丶顛覆國家政權丶恐怖活動以及境外勢力干預香港事務的活動。然而，此舉實為香港本已千瘡百孔丶極度脆弱的「高度自治」以及公民自由再添上致命的一擊。

2003年，香港政府意圖以本地立法程序，強推與《國安法》性質相近的23條時，遭到廣泛社會強烈反對，因而宣佈撤回方案。在如此具爭議性的議案面前，暴露了香港政府欠缺民主荃礎。十多年後，香港政府及中央政府的正當性在2019年的反修例運動當中，再次面對挑戰。

然而，正當國際社會忙於對抗疫情，北京卻藉此機會對香港的自治作出一連串的打壓。它先是將中聯辦對香港的「監督權」制度化，現在全國人大更是繞過香港立法會的立法程序，將港版《國安法》直接放在《基本法》附件三，稍後由香港政府公布實施。

香港2019年的運動得以持續多時，有賴三條不同的戰線：街頭抗爭丶議會選舉以及國際遊說的工作。北京以「國家安全」為名，引入一系列的法律條文，一方面藉此取得不受制約的權力，任意打壓示威者以及選舉候選人，另一方面則可以隔絕香港與國際社會之間的連結，阻撓外界對香港的支持。

與此同時，北京已經進一步加強在港的政治宣傳工作，不管示威和平與否，多次指是「本土恐怖主義」抬頭。這亦意味著，於接下來的日子，示威者會極易墮入新《國安法》的規管，並且面對更嚴苛的法律制裁。令人更為擔憂的是，這條法案亦表明針對境外勢力「干預香港事務」。這意味著，不論是議員或抗爭者，單單因為曾經參與國際遊說工作，就可能會被剝奪參選的資格，甚至面臨監禁。而國際非政府組織（INGOs）以及其他組織丶團體，他們的員工以及資產均可能遭受法律清算。

在沒有一個妥當、民意基礎的立法程序下，定義含糊的法律用詞像「分裂國家」以及「顛覆國家」極易會被用作打壓、迫害的工具，侵害我們與生俱來的自由和權利，包括言論自由、集會自由以及宗教自由。所有對於中國以及香港政府的批評，甚至只是支持香港運動的聲音，極有可能被視為分裂或顛覆國家的行為，受到法律制裁。這種寒蟬效將會持續發酵，城內將會出現大量的自我審查，而這種審查勢將蔓延至國際社會。

香港的自由─不論是她作為國際金融中心的角色，還是她充滿生命力的公民社會─都關係到國際社會的利益。再者，基本法所承諾的「一國兩制」丶「高度自治」以及普選，本就得到國際法下所簽訂的《中英聯合聲明》認可。是次中央政府自上而下推行的《國安法》已經不只是香港的本地事務，更是對國際社會的威嚇，讓其噤聲。

一直以來，香港是異見者丶思想破格的人以及革新者的容身之所。縱然面對著日益強大的中國，我們堅持發聲，道出真相。在疫症期間，中國已經顯示出它實為流氓政權的真面目。而在過去一年，我們一直站在對抗中國極權的最前線。

我們衷心希望，世界並不會因中國承諾的經濟利益而妥協，犧牲一直所秉持的核心價值——亦即對人權的尊重；不應因疫情所帶來的經濟衰退，而靠攏日益橫蠻的中國威權。經濟貿易應建立於平等和公平的基礎之上，而非透過威脅以及霸凌來達致。我們呼籲美國執行《香港人權民主法》，歐盟通過《全球馬格尼茨基人權問責法》，對中國實施制裁，以及在即將與中國達成的貿易協議內加入與香港人權狀況相關的條款。

我們再一次懇請世界與香港同行。

————————————————

Beijing has just hammered the final nail in the coffin for Hong Kong’s autonomy. The promise of “one country, two systems” is dead.

Last week, the National People’s Congress (NPC) introduced a draft decision that purports to “establish and improve the legal system and enforcement mechanisms” to “safeguard national security” in Hong Kong. Once passed, the decision will empower the NPC’s Standing Committee to entirely bypass the local legislative process in Hong Kong and implement the infamous “national security law” in the city. On paper, this law aims at prohibiting any act of secession, subversion against the central government, terrorism and foreign interference with Hong Kong affairs. It constitutes, however, a devastating blow to Hong Kong’s already fragile autonomy and civil liberties.

Back in 2003, the Hong Kong government’s forceful attempt to pass a similar piece of legislation in the local legislature was met with uproar from civil society and was aborted. The undemocratic nature of the government proved to be its Achilles’ heel.

More than 15 years later, the legitimacy of the local and central governments faced yet another major challenge amid the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement. But now, Beijing has taken advantage of the global covid-19 pandemic and initiated a series of assaults against Hong Kong’s autonomy while the international community has its hands tied by the virus. It first attempted to institutionalize the “supervisory power” of China’s Liaison Office in the city. The NPC is now further attacking “one country, two systems” by circumventing Hong Kong’s Legislative Council: It legislates by way of inserting the national security law directly to the Annex III of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution, which will later simply be promulgated by the Hong Kong government.

Three elements helped sustain the 2019 movement: street protests, local electoral institutions and international advocacy efforts. By introducing a series of legal instruments in the name of national security, Beijing wields massive discretionary power to punish protesters and electoral candidates on the one hand, and to cut off Hong Kong from the international society and its crucial support on the other.

Beijing has stepped up its propaganda efforts in Hong Kong by framing the recent protests, peaceful or otherwise, as terrorism. In the future, under the national security law, protesters might easily be subject to much more draconian legal punishments. Worse still, the law explicitly takes aim at foreign interventions “meddling in Hong Kong affairs.” Not only can activists or legislators who have participated in international advocacy efforts be barred from running in elections or even imprisoned, international nongovernmental organizations and other organizations, including their personnel and assets, can also be subject to legal persecution.

Ultimately, without a proper democratic legislative procedure, vague legal terms such as “secession” and “subversion” easily devolve into repressive tools that intrude on our fundamental freedoms and rights, including freedom of speech, assembly and religion. It is not implausible that any criticism against the Chinese or Hong Kong governments — or even demonstration of support for the Hong Kong movements — will soon be construed as a subversive act, punishable by law. This chilling effect will eventually snowball: It starts with widespread self-censorship in the city and then spills over its borders into the rest of the world.
The liberty of the city — from its role of international financial hub to the vibrancy of its civil society — has always been important to the interests of the international community. Furthermore, the promises of “one country, two systems,” “high degree of autonomy” and universal suffrage enshrined in the Basic Law are backed by the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which was recognized under international law. Top-down insertion of the national security law goes beyond a local matter in Hong Kong: It is intended to silence the will of the international community.

Historically, Hong Kong has been the safe haven for the dissident, the liberal-minded and the nonconformist; we speak truth to an increasingly powerful China. Amid the virus, China has revealed its true colors as a rogue state. And in the past year, we have been standing at the forefront against China’s encroaching authoritarianism.

We sincerely hope that the international community will not give in to the economic benefits China has to offer and sacrifice respect for human rights. The economic recession brought by the virus ought not to be resolved through succumbing to China’s encroaching authoritarianism; trade happens on equal and fair terms but not threatening and bullying. We urge the U.S. government to execute the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, impose sanctions on China and include human rights terms in relation to Hong Kong into trade treaties they are about to conclude with China.
We ask you, once again, to stand with Hong Kong.

【 跑步，就等於練肌力了嗎】- Part 1
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
✅跑步是一種非常好的全身運動，而且也越來越流行了，但是有一件事情實在是太有趣了，就是即使是肌力很差的人，仍然可以跑完半馬甚至全馬，門診常常可以發現這樣的跑者，有些人可能連個標準的弓箭步或者深蹲都做不好，或者做不了幾個就覺得腳很酸，也常常有人標準的棒式做不了20秒鐘，但是，這些人卻能夠硬生生把全馬給跑完了，所以，人體真的是很奇妙，就算你不用大腿的力量，其實也可以跑完42公里，很神奇吧！那麼，問題是「肌力」到底在跑步運動中扮演什麼角色呢? 難道馬拉松真的靠意志力就可以了嗎？ (引言來自：超越復健診所 凃俐雯醫師 文章）
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
❇️長距離跑步的運動需求與生理特性
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
✅長距離跑步的能力取決於各種生理和運動力學因素：最大攝氧量(V̇O2max)一直被視為耐力性能的關鍵因子。
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
然而，對於已經訓練多年的耐力運動員來說，我們很難通過增加V̇O2max來提高他們的跑步性能，因為他們身體的能力可能已經達到穩定狀態。
Noakes認為，肌肉力量受到神經肌肉和無氧特性的交互影響(muscle power factors affected by an interaction of neuro- muscular and anaerobic characteristics) 以及跑步經濟性，對於菁英層級運動員這可能是決定運動表現的關鍵。
.
✅跑步效率 / 跑步經濟性（Running Economy , RE) 單位：ml O2 /kg/km ：定義為在某個速度之下，身體持續運行時，每單位氧氣的吸收率。可介定為每跑1公里身體所需要的攝氧量，數值越低，反映身體使用氧氣的效率越高 (即同樣配速下需求較少氧氣/能量），相對來說更省力。
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
我舉一個例子來說明：買車的時候我們通常會看一台車的”油秏”，RE好的選手，可以想成節省”油秏”能力很強，在同等速度下，Ａ比Ｂ的”油秏”更少，那Ａ就是”油秏”比較好的車。
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
✅耐力訓練的主要適應性是由於心輸出量增加，線粒體密度，酶濃度和活性以及毛細血管密度增加而導致的最大攝氧量提高。
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
✅力量訓練的主要目的是透過增加最大強度神經肌肉刺激和肌肉增長，儘管在一些研究上顯示出肌力與耐力訓練會彼此產生干擾現象(interference effect)。 ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
✅研究指出會產生干擾現象通常是因為“大量的”耐力訓練時才會產生。也有許多研究指出同時進行兩種訓練對於神經肌肉適應性以及跑步表現正面效益，通常一般人比較不容易面臨這個問題。
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
✅前半馬世界紀錄保持者 Zersenay Tadesse ，曾保持當年半馬拉松世界記錄 (58分23秒，至最近才對打破)。
他的最大攝氧量 (VO2 max): 83 ml/kg/min ，身高: 163cm，體重: 54kg，BMI: 20.3，平均每周訓練里數: 145-150公里。
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
✅ Zersenay Tadesse 強大的秘密，Tadese 的跑步效率異常優秀，數值為 150，遠較於參與實驗西班牙精英跑手所測出的 211 為低。因此，Tadesse 能以較低的最高攝氧量百分比(%VO2max ) 來維持同一高配速 (>19km/hr)，研究人員推斷其表現，與此特徵有一定關連。
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
❇️如果你喜歡這次內容❇️
➡️可以追蹤我 IG : m_ssc
➡️按愛心鼓勵、幫我分享出去
.
.
.
#跑步 #肌力 #體能 #訓練 #突破 #馬拉松 #跑者 #鐵人 #教練 #長距離 #分享 #運動 #表現 #跑步效率 #經濟性