Solicitor- advocate Alan Muir laments the lack of sincerity that has become common in public life.

And that my learned friends, pretty much summarises what was accepted as amounting to an “apology” from the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for the type of claims accounting that would make a Sun journalist blush. Somehow “collective responsibility” comes to mind. It might have been a better idea for her to consider the works of those female social commentators Banarama, “I’m guilty, guilty as a girl can be…”

To me, and many of those who have since commented it seems, a forced apology, as this so obviously was, can be more damaging than the original act. It lacked honesty, it lacked sincerity and it lacked any hint of contrition whatsoever. The whole demeanour was of someone a tad irked at being forced from a busy schedule of sororial midnight feasts at the main des’ res’. You recall the des’ res’? Hell, of course you recall it - you paid for it! When looking at the so called “Blair Babes”, you don’t have to listen too hard to hear the Pankhursts whirling in their graves. Between Kelly, Flint, Blears et al they managed to form the one step back to the two forward by those e.g. prepared to see an illegal war for what it was and say so - Mowlem, Short. If they were the window dressing for New Labour’s shop, you have to wonder what the O.F.T. were doing that year!

But, I digress. So what is a genuine apology?

As lawyers we are accused, day and daily, of lying for a living etc,etc. In the criminal courts we put forward pleas-in-mitigation, in the civil courts they offer “upped” sums of compensation in the middle of Parliament Hall at 09.50 because what member of the public could possibly feel intimidated by the pomp, the pompous and the panoply that is, pre- Gill at least, the norm.

My view, quantum valeat is that an apology, to be worthy of the term, must have three elements.

It must be a voluntary act borne of the conscience of its maker.

It must set out an apology not “Sorry” followed by a lot of lame excuses, criticisms of the system, or worse, “it wasn’t just me you know”.

It must be sincere – i.e. free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness

When Lee Lacocca was asked what the three main elements for commercial success in America were, he replied “Sincerity, sincerity, sincerity and once you can fake that …”

Fr. Anthony De Mello in his “Awareness” opined that all acts of kindness must contain an element of selfishness. It wasn’t written by way of criticism, merely stating a truth that in making an apology we do feel a bit better about ourselves and hope that we are seen, and recognized, as having “done the right thing”.

Against that background, how can the “effort” by Miss Smith be seen as an apology. She, and others, took our money wrongly, in error, without our knowledge, and worse in her case, not only bleats about it, but won’t be repaying some £100,000 either through ruling or conscience. You couldn’t make it up! Preside over prosecutions of single mothers for working for a minimum hourly rate when on a miserly benefit to buy children’s Christmas presents-yip; criticize the police union for having the audacity to request her then department to comply with the terms of a financial agreement – yip.

It seems that in these days of “phone in and maybe win the kidney you need”, shame can be salved by ministerial pension, a sisterly chat and a decent DVD of course. We can only hope that it won’t be Animal Farm as New Labour have managed a remake of that already. The prophetic writing of one Blair turned into a reality by another.

Ah well, back to S1 Jobs. Stay well.