British courts' swift trials and severe sentencing a good reference for Hong Kong

The case against online news website “Stand News” has concluded with two chief editors and the parent company found guilty of "conspiring to publish seditious publications." Western governments, including the United States and the United Kingdom, promptly criticized the verdict, alleging that freedom of speech and the press are diminishing in Hong Kong. However, when compared to actions taken by these same Western governments, Hong Kong's measures appear relatively restrained.

In the United Kingdom, swift trials and severe sentencing have once again set a precedent. British Undersecretary of State (Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office), Catherine West, posted on the social media platform X, urging Hong Kong authorities to halt what she termed "political prosecutions" of journalists and to uphold the freedom of the press as stipulated in the Basic Law. This criticism is ironic given the UK's recent harsh sentencing of instigators of domestic riots.

On July 29, nationwide riots erupted across the UK following a knife attack at a children's dance school perpetrated by a member of a minority group. The British government responded by employing rapid trial and sentencing procedures reminiscent of those used during the 2011 London riots. By August 13, authorities had arrested 1,024 individuals, with 572 swiftly prosecuted. Many received immediate prison sentences ranging from several weeks to ten years, including an 11-year-old boy and a 69-year-old man.

By West's own standards critiquing Hong Kong, some of those heavily sentenced in the UK were merely engaging in what could be described as "free exchange of opinions" online, without participating directly in the riots. For example, 28-year-old Jordan Parlour from Leeds admitted to posting racially charged messages on Facebook and was sentenced to 20 months in prison, becoming the first individual sentenced in connection with the UK riots. Parlour's posts included statements such as, "smash [the] f--- out of Britannia hotel (a hotel housing migrants)". He also claimed in a comment on Facebook that migrants were given "the Life of Riley off the tax us hard-working people earn when it could be put to better use". Compared to the 11 articles by “Stand News” deemed seditious, Parlour's comments seem relatively minor. Notably, the maximum sentence for "sedition" in Hong Kong at that time was two years, making it unlikely that the defendants in the “Stand News” case will face harsher penalties than Parlour. In some instances, individuals in the UK received several weeks of imprisonment merely for reacting with supportive emojis to radical posts—outcomes unimaginable in Hong Kong.

Similarly, U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller stated on X that the conviction of “Stand News” represents a direct attack on press freedom and tarnishes Hong Kong's reputation for openness. However, recalling the sentencing following the 2021 Capitol Hill riots, Enrique Tarrio, former leader of the right-wing group Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years in prison—the longest sentence among all defendants involved. Tarrio was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" despite not being physically present at the Capitol during the riots; he was coordinating activities online from a hotel in Baltimore. When comparing the 2021 Capitol Hill riots to the prolonged unrest in Hong Kong in 2019, the U.S. incident was relatively brief, yet one of its organizers received a 22-year sentence. By American standards, it raises the question of why Tarrio's sentence is not considered a violation of freedom of speech.

The situation in France further highlights this apparent double standard. A spokesperson for the European Union's External Action Service criticized the “Stand News” verdict as another example of shrinking press freedom in Hong Kong, warning that it could further limit diverse opinions and the free flow of information—both fundamental to Hong Kong's economic success. But look at what the French did. France recently arrested Pavel Durov, founder of the messaging app Telegram, accusing the platform of facilitating unchecked criminal activities. It’s noted that Telegram was widely used during Hong Kong's 2019 unrest, with several groups directly organizing riots through the app. Despite this, Hong Kong authorities have not taken action against such communication platforms, which often claim they cannot control the content shared by users. Now that  France directly hit on a communication software provider, but the EU spokesperson says nothing about freedom of expression in France.

In summary, the United States and other Western governments often exhibit inconsistencies between their words and actions. The UK's handling of rioters and France's arrest of Telegram's founder inadvertently support the Hong Kong court's judgment in the “Stand News” case by demonstrating methods of addressing incitement to rebellion. Notably, the UK's rapid sentencing effectively quelled the riots within 11 days—an approach Hong Kong should seriously study and consider.

Wing-hung Lo

Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

C.Y. Leung just dropped receipts on Facebook. Next Digital's cash cow wasn't journalism—it was advertising. And the man squeezing those corporate wallets was Mark Simon, Jimmy Lai's American fixer, who sent letters to Hong Kong's biggest property developers that read like protection racket scripts. Pay up or face hostile coverage. Classic triad tactics, dressed in business English.
  
This isn't speculation. In July 2014, leaked documents from a "Next Digital shareholder" exposed the playbook. Among them: Mark Simon's threatening correspondence with a major corporation's chief executive. The message was blunt—advertise with us or watch your friendly coverage vanish. This is how Lai bankrolled his operation.
 
Mark Simon wore multiple hats beside Jimmy Lai. Former U.S. military intelligence officer. Next Digital's advertising director. The man who built Lai's financial pipeline and then distributed the cash to opposition figures and radical groups. His role was never just about selling ad space.

Jimmy Lai’s fixer Mark Simon used ad “sales” letters like a protection racket—buy space in Apple Daily or get hammered in the coverage.

  
The Shakedown Letters
The leaked documents from July 2014 pulled back the curtain. Media reports at the time confirmed that Mark Simon, during his tenure as advertising director, sent threatening letters to a major conglomerate's top executive. The approach: carrot and stick, heavy on the stick.
  
In the letter, Simon claimed he wanted to repair relations. Then came the threat: refuse to advertise with Next Digital and the "friendly relationship" ends. Translation: attack pieces resume. He followed up with another letter demanding a face-to-face meeting, warning that future cooperation between Next Digital and the conglomerate would become "difficult" without compliance.
  
The leaked documents contained no reply from the conglomerate, so we don't know their response. What we do know: major corporations kept advertising in Apple Daily during that period. The shakedown likely worked.
  
Bankrolling the Opposition
Mark Simon didn't just collect money for Boss Lai—he distributed it to pan-democrats and radical groups. The leaked documents revealed the operation's scope, particularly around the 2014 Occupy Central movement, when funding flowed freely.
 
Two months before Occupy Central formally launched, Jimmy Lai and Mark Simon exchanged emails discussing a "June special project." Lai funneled HK$9.5 million through Simon to the Democratic Party, Civic Party, and others—seed money to push Occupy Central forward.
 
The pair also provided approximately HK$3.5 million for the "June 22 Civil Referendum"—publicity and promotion for a stunt that mobilized citizens to select proposals for "universal suffrage for Chief Executive." This built momentum for Occupy Central. The operation was led by Benny Tai and Robert Chung, but Lai was the financier pulling strings from behind. The leaked emails even caught Lai mocking the "Occupy Trio" as scholars with ideas but no strategy, saying he had no choice but to help them—meaning he wanted control.

Big-brand ad money kept Apple Daily flush with cash, letting Lai pour funds into pan-democrats and radical groups on a grand scale.

 
The Money Pipeline
From 2013 to 2020, Mark Simon controlled Jimmy Lai's cash spigot. Court testimony revealed that Lai opened nine accounts over those seven years, transferring HK$118 million to Simon. Of that sum, HK$93 million went to pan-democratic parties and political figures.
  
The timeline matters. From September to December 2019—right after the anti-extradition bill unrest erupted—Simon distributed funds ranging from HK$8 million to HK$1 million to the Civic Party, Democratic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats, Au Nok-hin, and Lee Yu-hin. Pouring fuel on the fire while Hong Kong burned.
 
Who Is Mark Simon Really?
Simon fled to the United States, so his true identity remains murky. But the evidence points to something beyond a simple business relationship. One detail stands out: Simon's access to White House National Security Council meetings. He knew the latest deployments, including actions following the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act signing and even Trump's thinking, which he then reported back to Boss Lai.
  
Political observers who've tracked Simon speculate he may have operated with dual identities from the start—both Lai's right-hand man, helping establish direct channels to Washington, and a covert operative planted by the Americans to pull the strings of this particular puppet.
 
Given Mark Simon's shadowy role, Western politicians and media portraying Jimmy Lai as a simple "freedom of the press warrior" tells you everything about their credibility. It's a lie told with a straight face.
 
Lai Ting-yiu