Sticker, posted without a caption

Channel
@BNOUK
@BNOUK
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Cite this entry
810subscribers
-2 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.
Register entry
| Telegram ID | -1001325372628 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @BNOUK |
| Created | Between 1 March 2018 and 31 August 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 14 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/BNOUK |
Growth
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026, 23:35 | 810 | -2 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 00:39 | 812 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 21:33 | 812 | first reading |
Engagement
16 posts held, back to 15 October 2023 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 16 posts for this entry, the most recent from 19 October 2024. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Reaction mix
6 reactions across 4 posts, in 2 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 83.3% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 5 | 83.3% | |
| 👎 | 1 | 16.7% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 4 of the 16 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 6reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 16 most recent posts we hold, published 15 October 2023 to 19 October 2024, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Recent posts
Photo, posted without a caption
Sticker, posted without a caption
Sticker, posted without a caption
Sticker, posted without a caption
我睇到你喺香港人在倫敦寫果個po 多謝你花咁多時間🫡
Photo, posted without a caption
0134 #太子 #旺角警署 一微胖黑衣中年男子於旺角警署附近襲擊記者。 #高登 小編Pi:請附近市民小心提防。
總結一下,對「打記者」呢個指控嘅評論 。 一、睇條片 , 只見到有爭執,唔見有「打」人 。 「實時」入面嘅信息, 只似係覆述其他消息,並未見頻道自己有核實查證 。 二、片中見某人有叫人「隻抽」,但由對話來容估計,雙方本身有私怨,爭執並非因為採訪工作而引起 。 三、由片段可見,拍攝者受騷擾之後講出挑釁嘅說話,並未有顯示記者應有公正、求真、為公眾理益等嘅專業行為 。其拍攝行為令人對其是否執行記者工作存疑 。 四、某些傳媒一樣可以有記者證,所以是否正在採訪,應留意該行動是否有記者嘅專業,而非執行者是否有記者證 。因此我亦指出,有興趣嘅人,可以參考下網上比較 journalist 同 vlogger 嘅討論 。 五、為網媒工作亦都可以係記者,我未有因為網媒而否定記者身份 。而網媒之中我會認為《獨立媒體》或《法庭線》質素較高 。 六、最後,希望某啲人士唔好為咗攻擊他人,濫用記者光環而將一啲事件夾硬叫做「打記者」 。我覺得咁…
有班人簡單用「打記者」三個字唱衰另一個人,講咗起碼一、兩年 。咁啱有條片upload 咗,所以我終於認真睇咗一陣 。 我睇完之後認為「打記者」只係一個誇大、失實嘅指控 。 為遏止呢種片言隻語式批鬥嘅風氣,我整合咗我嘅論點去指出「打記者」指控有咩嘅嘅漏洞 。詳情可以睇下面兩個信息: https://t.me/hkerinlondon/37136 https://t.me/hkerinlondon/37173 (我同被指控者冇私交,我只係認為抹黑之風不可長,所以先花時間去分析呢個指控 。至於被指控者其他嘅事我不予置評 。)
👍2
廉署起訴男子轉載煽惑杯葛區選帖文 通緝已離港帖文原作者黃世澤 廉政公署今早落案起訴一名男子,控告他涉嫌在今年區議會選舉期間,在個人網上社交媒體專頁轉載一則煽惑他人杯葛區議會選舉的帖文,被告下午被帶往粉嶺裁判法院答辯。另外,廉署獲裁判官簽發手令,通緝帖文的原作者、已離港的黃世澤。涉案38歲男子文榮鋒,報稱是電腦程式員,被控一項罪名,即在選舉期間內藉公開活動作出煽惑另一人不投票的非法行為,違反《選舉(舞弊及非法行為)條例》。廉署說被告涉嫌在今年10月31日,在他個人網上社交媒體專頁上展示一則煽惑他人在該選舉中不投票的帖文。調查發現,被告轉載的貼文,原本由黃世澤於選舉期間在兩個網上社交媒體平台發布,該貼文並附有一項超連結,內容為黃世澤在一個社交網站頻道煽惑他人在區議會選舉中不投票的直播影片。廉署表示,向律政司徵詢法律意見後,今早落案起訴文榮鋒。因黃世澤已離開香港,廉署已向法院申請手令,並獲裁判官簽發手令通緝他。廉署指,45歲的黃世澤…
#ALERT 廉署通緝已離港男子黃世澤,涉煽惑他人不投票;另一名男子涉轉載黃世澤呼籲不投票貼文,被落案起訴今午提堂。 (12/4/20:42)
Showing the 12 most recent of 16 posts we hold for @BNOUK. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Forward network
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
- Dead references
- 1
- handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
- Evidenced gone
- 0
- we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
- Never seen alive
- 1
- vacant every time we have ever looked
@BNOUK named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all.A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
named in 2 posts, 8 August 2026 – 8 August 2026
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“@BNOUK” (@BNOUK), 810 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/BNOUK.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.