Student leaders urged their supporters to surround and occupy government headquarters to escalate their occupation movement and force the government to compromise.

As events unfolded in Hong Kong, it was interesting to observe how the British media reported the ensuing confrontations.

To begin with, terms such as "pro-democracy protesters, activists and demonstrators" were commonly used in all the major British media such as the Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, The Independent and the BBC. But what about "mob", "rabble" or "thugs"? These more accurate descriptions were conspicuous by their absence. I believe such terms are more appropriate to describe protesters who were equipped with sharp objects, home-made shields with nails, bottles, helmets, eggs, bricks, umbrellas, stones, materials taken from nearby building sites and other weapons. Were all these people only activists, protesters and demonstrators exercising their democratic rights? Are their offensive weapons really symbols of a peaceful movement?

I doubt it. Those masked individuals ignoring police warnings to retreat were determined to injure officers there to uphold the law.

The Guardian report included interviews with some individuals involved in the incident. They were quoted as using terms such as "to fight, brutal, battle, not ready to take up arms". The paper also described police in "riot gear". Who were the aggressors then? It would be foolish for police not to prepare themselves in such a high-risk situation. Among the demonstrators, there were a large number of people ready for a serious fight. They were no longer students subscribing to the original ideals of the "Occupy Central" of "love and peace".

Reports in The Telegraph showed the newspaper's obvious appeal to the establishment. It used the term "former colony" several times to describe Hong Kong. When will they get rid of their dreams that one day Hong Kong might again belong to Britain?

Hong Kong is not Gibraltar in the first instance and secondly, it returned to China 17 years ago. They should stop dreaming.

The newspaper did mention that demonstrators were attempting to block access to the Chief Executive's Office and government headquarters to stop the government functioning. Intent such as this if it occurred in the UK, would amount to the occupation of Whitehall and Downing Street, I would think the Telegraph would find other terms to describe these "occupiers". It would not simply call them "pro-democracy activists".

Most British media understand that universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive (CE) has been promised for 2017. They have, however, used the term of "pre-screened candidates" to describe the function of the Nomination Committee (NC) as stipulated in the Basic Law. They offered no explanation as to how these pre-screenings will take place. They also failed to mention that different stages of the consultation on constitutional reform had occurred in Hong Kong to improve representation in the NC.

Will they try to understand this and inform their readers what needs to be done in Hong Kong to extend the franchise of the nomination process? I don't think so.

I have always argued that moving on to the third stage of the consultation is the best way to move the debate forward. What Hong Kong needs is consensus.

Members of the two student groups have been involved in illegal activities for the last two months. Their leaders, together with some "pan-democratic" legislators, have been asking for the resignation of the CE, public nomination for the CE candidates and the overturning of the National People's Congress Standing Committee's decisions as their demands to bring an end to the occupation. They know all these demands are against the principle of "One Country, Two Systems" and the Basic Law.

Demanding the government listen to the people without adhering to the rule of law, taking an active role in discussions on how best to deliver constitutional change and going through the legislative process required to make universal suffrage a reality for the millions of Hong Kong voters would be like asking someone to listen to what you have to say while covering your ears.

It is time to stop allowing the mob in Hong Kong to erode the rule of law. We must end conflicts which threaten the city's stability and prosperity.

To the students I would say this, stop the occupation and engage in talks to make the nomination process more representative. It is true that the future belongs to you but do you have to destroy the present for everyone else to achieve it?

The author is director of the Chinese in Britain Forum. He was the first-ever Chinese British citizen to be elected mayor of the Greater London Borough of Redbridge (2009-10) and served as a member of the city council for over 10 years.

(HK Edition 12/08/2014 page9)