Oh come on lg. Thats just spam

Back on topic,

Sick, uncaring bastards! Have these fuckers no shame?

What's this thing in society now where apologizing makes everything OK?

Just don't do the thing in the first place! people have to be responsible for their actions otherwise it's just about doing what you want then chucking in an apology at the end to justify your action.

humanspirit wrote:
This is what I was on about when I mentioned the difference between saying sorry and apologising HS.
We all fuck up. When we realise we've fucked up, those of us who care, feel sorrow for our actions and say sorry with no need of a prompt..
Those who are caught doing wrong but feel no sorrow can get away with a simple apology. It's a kind of PR exercise. Might be one thing when your mum gets you to apologise to a neighbour for scrumping their apples...bit different in cases like this.

The Police said they would make an apólogy, I wonder if that has happened yet.

Britain's most senior police officer said today an apology for the use of dead children's identities would be “pretty false” as investigators do not yet know who is affected.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe insisted that there is no reluctance to say sorry after claims that undercover officers used the details to shore up their fake personas.

“I regret if anybody's been hurt by what happened. The main issue we've got is not a reluctance to apologise to anybody badly affected by it, it is actually establishing the facts,” he said.

“These are historical events. We are desperately trying to understand what happened, how many times did it happen and who is affected by it.

“Frankly, it would be a pretty false apology if we were to make it today because we don't even know who is affected by it.

“There's no reluctance to apologise once we've established the facts.”

His comments echo those of deputy assistant commissioner Patricia Gallan, who told MPs earlier this month that investigators were focusing on getting to the truth and that “at the appropriate time statements will be made”.

She said that the force had received two complaints but the parents concerned had not been informed.

Today, Sir Bernard said police had to consider the consequences of revealing the identities of former undercover officers.

“If we identify the name of the person who was involved, presumably as an undercover officer, and if the person against whom that undercover officer was deployed is unaware of it, but discovers through publication of that name that person was an undercover officer or may be, we've got to consider the consequences of that.

“Even though that's a fair amount of time ago, those officers are still around or retired.

“We've got to unpick all of that before we start approaching families. We've really got to think it through. If we do go to the family, we've got to accept that makes that information open.”

I don't understand why they even did it in the first place.

Oh come on lg. Thats just spam

knobmeup wrote:
Yes come on LG there's no need for these long, irrelevant, colourful, copy & paste posts that have no bearing on the topic.