On the nature of an apology

[wsk]

I've just finished reading the conclusion to P1M's go 'round with VisitScotland. This leads me to wonder about the nature of a proper apology. In the aforementioned thread, is the Official response and apology from VisitScotland. Reading this posting, were it addressed to me, I would be left feeling unsatisfied.

Why? you ask. Because very little of this "apology" is about P1M - one sentence and that one somewhat obtuse. Rather it's about "them". It doesn't show any understanding of why P1M deserves an apology, no understanding of how their actions have caused hurt, but instead offers excuses and redirection away from the reason that the apology is ostensibly given.

An apology is no easy thing to make - it shouldn't be. A proper apology must show that the apologizer knows and understands the hurt the offended feels. Without this, I believe that the apology is meaningless to the offended and only assuages the guilt - if any - of the offender.

So say I. What say you?

[Howard Clark]

Aye, thought much the same myself, sadly. Beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, or no apology at all, but...