FOXY.. speaking of Tony Blair.... in the context of "Will Gordon Brown be remembered in the Wax Museum"

the newsreader this morning on SkyNews, observed that Tony Blair had been placed in Madaam Tousseuds wax museum... in a NATIVITY SCENE...
and the poor newsreader cracked up and almost brought the whole team down with a fit of the giggles.

"Did they make him one of the wise men"? and so the one liners unfolded.
(along with the giggles)

TOPIC. The topic clearly shows the problems associated with such apologies for historic wrongs. 'Where do you stop'?

Hear hear, Perciles.

I would also add that while we may now find some past actions distasteful we are only applying our current thinking and values to those scenerios. Values change over time, so to hold someone responsbile for actions of an ancestor, perhaps, hundreds of years ago is ludicrous.

Perhaps one of your ancestors was a murderer; should you be held responible for their actions, track down the murdered's family and apologise? Unlikely....

Unless the person who performed the crime changes his / her attitude to remorse for the action the whole criminal act remains unresolved. Apologising for ncestors wrongs only resolves the current persons attitudes if they hold the same criminal attitudes as their ancestors.

Much of the depression / guilt industry operates on someone else's unresolved crimes. Let us live life by our own conscience and be free of the guilt of others. Stop grovelling to others agends to make us bear guilt that is not our doing. We are answerable for our own lives not others. That means we do not commit the sins of our ancestors.

A-Hahahahaha Nice one.

Do we as decendants of the persecuted of the Bristish empire require that to help move on from from the injustices we feel as the 'peasants' of their rule?.

My ancestry is Scottish with a dash of pom. Going by the lack of influence the royal family have on my existence I feel is a telling sign of the future for 'the family'. I hold no animosity towards the empire due to the fact that that was just how it worked then. Do we all wanna sit and plead victim, or do we just wanna get on with it?.

So all of you agree that the Office of Prime Minister of Australia should NOT have apologised for what earler generations did to indigenous peoples. What you have said to me about the Queen is exactly what John Howard [and I didn't vote for him, he lives in 1950s] said about aplogising to the aborigines. My point is that we hold double standards. Japan will not apologise for War Crimes but feels China should apologize for its arocities in China which go to 1930s. China is against burying war criminals in war necropolises.

Beings against the "Sins of the Fathers" is also oppoesed to the docrines of the Cathloc Church and the Anglican Church on original sin. The Queen as Defender of the Faith upholds the doctrine of "original sin". I suspect the Hecrews would have held that "original sinal" as a doctrine and term did not stop with the alleged adam and Eve.

Perhaps Elizabeth should Not apologise {i really don't care]; but maybe should dispense with some of her titles.

My true purpose with the post was expose hypocracy and attact the the notion of Defender of the Faith.

It seems to me, Oliver, that what you're writing about has more to do with religion? Howabout the Archbishop of Canterbury apologise and/or the Pope for the Crusades?!

Wake up....