輪到《Financial Times》好中肯嘅報導（留意用詞）
//the police ordered Mr Sham’s group to clear the streets at 5.30pm local time. At that stage several thousand protesters were still waiting to join the march.//
（响5點30分，警方命令Mr Sham嘅人羣清場，當時仲有幾千人等緊參與遊行。）
//Both sides blamed each other for sparking the violence, with protesters saying they were retreating from the clashes when police indiscriminately fired tear gas at them after others accused undercover officers of being overly aggressive in arresting protesters. The Hong Kong police said officers were “deploying the minimum necessary force”. At one point police directly targeted a group of journalists with a water cannon.//
（雙方都指責對方引發暴力衝突，示威者話警察無差別咁射催淚彈，同時喬裝警察响拘捕期間濫用暴力，所以決定撤退。而警方話自己「使用最低武力」，不過有段時間用水炮車對住一班記者。）
師父，明白了！
P.S. 果然係英國政經大報，結尾仲講埋18個國家嘅政治人物（包括前下議院院長John Bercow）比香港政府嘅公開信，It would be a tragedy if it loses this role and gains a reputation for repression"。
政府嘅回應係，“Hong Kong is being used as a pawn by some in the west to further their own agendas.”
#一個報導醜兩次
Photo Source：Financial Times
原文：https://on.ft.com/39qbshr
Search