Monday, April 26, 2010

What exactly are we apologising for?

A big kerfuffle this weekend about the Pope, with the rather juvenile suggestions made by junior Foreign Office wallahs, as to what the Pope might do, on his visit to Britain, amongst the suggestions he should launch a brand of condoms, bless a gay couple etc.

Now for me, in the world I live, this sort of suggestion would be amusing in a refreshing non-politically correct sort of way, that would make most laugh, so exactly what is the British government saying sorry for?

Yes now, the comments are in the public domain, the government has to apologise, since the Pope leads a community of mainly law abiding decent people, but here is a list of things that also need addressing, firstly how did a presumably confidential document get in the public domain?

More importantly the “humour” was based on the rather challenging assertions of the Catholic Church which clashes with the majority non religious less prejudiced attitude of your average Brit.

A sense of proportion is needed, setting aside child abusing priests, I think when worrying about the sensibilities of the Catholic Church and or the British government, both along with other “christians” have a history of mistreating children during the 1940’s, 50’s and well into the 1960’s children were removed from this country to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) without the knowledge of parents, a total of 130,000 in a reckless social policy aimed at populating the former Empire with “good, white British stock”

It took more than over 50 years for a British Prime Minster to apologise to 130,000 British citizens, many having been sent as cheap labour or to be used and abused in institutions run by “christians”.

Anyhow an apology is certainly due to the Pope but what the hell, what’s the rush, if you can wait 50 years to apologise to citizens forcibly removed from family and sent half around the world I think a priest even the Pope can hang fire for a day or two.

British hypocrisy is nothing, if not grotesque, still if you couldn’t have a laugh, you’d only cry.

The Child Migrant Trust

P.S. no apology from Bignews Margate for thinking the F.O. officials ought to be congratulated for their sense of humour, pity they don’t represent public opinion more often.


  1. I would have thought it obvious Tony. Families unable to stop their own children being shipped halfway around the world for no good reason are unlikely to impact on a general election but any one guy able to influence vast numbers of voters is due to have his backside kissed for the foreseeable.

  2. spot on these religious nut jobs want get in the real world

  3. Put it another way, would the Foreign Office have drafted a 'funny' memo where they suggested greeting the Saudi King on his next official visit by putting on a piss-up with lap dancers and a hog roast?

    Probably not. After all, it's OK to offend the Pope, he doesn't have any oil, does he?

  4. Hopefully these sort of comments are made all the time, lets hope the F O improve security so that civil servants are allowed to think freely.

    The FO issue is as it seems a manufactured election campaign reaction good point Matt.

    Also an interesting point from our Vatican correspondent ECR who suggests the FO wouldn't have drafted a funny memo, concerning the Saudi King, I think your mistaken ECR.

    I'm sure that the civil service has similar respect for all bigots

  5. The Vatican's real crime is goving $2 bn to the Croatian Nazis to help them commit genocide & supplying the openly genocidal Moslem terrorist drug lords of the KLA with artillery & ground to air missiles.

    Obviously since the "LibDems" also practice genocide (& worse) in the Nazi cause, you will entirely approve of the Papacy doing so but obviously no remotely decent human being will.

  6. A less known fact is that the Australian Govt admitted to falsifying selected births as still births in order to adopt babies out whilst their natural parents believed their baby died at birth. Claiming this social engineering experimentation only ended there as recently as 1973.

    In UK the govt has made no similar admission. But questions were being asked here by a women's still birth group who kept a well known Catholic (involving new born adoptions)organisation under scrutiny in the early 70s.

    What may have happened is that well meaning catholics adopted, through catholic agencies, what they were told were births in which mothers had been dissuaded from abortion.