Will the British govt apologise for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre 100years after the event?

[JSinghnz]

10 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

Cause its what you are doung when you keep thinking about them. 

Just my perspective of course.

Try to think straight. Just my perspective of course 

[JSinghnz]

3 minutes ago, kcmidlands said:

When David Cameron visited there a few years back he stopped short of an official apology, stating it would be wrong to "reach back into history" and apologies for the wrongs of British colonialism, he called it a "deeply shameful event".

The British government will never apologies for it nor will they say sorry for the many other atrocities commented by them during the day's of Empire, the moment they do they will be liable for it and reparations will have to be paid.

Apologies and reparations are quite different last time I checked the dictionary.

[Redoptics]

Just now, JSinghnz said:

Try to think straight. Just my perspective of course 

Whats so good about thinking straight?

[JSinghnz]

Just now, Redoptics said:

Whats so good about thinking straight?

Carry on thinking un straight then.

[Redoptics]

8 minutes ago, JSinghnz said:

Carry on thinking un straight then.

And you keep having tunnel vision thinking straight.

Any way I said i did not mean to offend you, sorry if I did.

[kcmidlands]

1 hour ago, JSinghnz said:

Apologies and reparations are quite different last time I checked the dictionary.

They are, my point being, if they apologies then they will have provide financial remuneration for every single atrocity they committed.

[Guest]

I won't trust them even if they did. 

they want more sepoys LOL

[JSinghnz]

5 hours ago, kcmidlands said:

They are, my point being, if they apologies then they will have provide financial remuneration for every single atrocity they committed.

No they will not have to pay a single cent if they apologise. 

[MisterrSingh]

6 hours ago, kcmidlands said:

When David Cameron visited there a few years back he stopped short of an official apology, stating it would be wrong to "reach back into history" and apologies for the wrongs of British colonialism, he called it a "deeply shameful event".

The British government will never apologies for it nor will they say sorry for the many other atrocities commented by them during the day's of Empire, the moment they do they will be liable for it and reparations will have to be paid.

There's a reason they (as in Prime Ministers or Presidents) stop short of an unequivocal, "I'm / We're sorry for what we did," because from a legal perspective it could be seen as an admission of wrongdoing on behalf of the country they represent, and therefore open the door to a legal challenge that might result in a hefty financial settlement running into hundreds of millions or more.

It shows a woeful understanding of geo-politics if we're expecting an apology -- which would most likely be directed to India who doesn't really give a poo about Sikhs -- especially when there's an unspoken and implicit agreement between the two countries when trade contracts are awarded that any such untoward and thorny diplomatic issues will be avoided if smooth business, trading, and IMMIGRATION arrangements are to be upheld for the benefit of both nations.

Britain is not Canada. Canada, with all due respect, is a weak nation that doesn't have the history or standing on the international stage that Britain had; HAD. Britain is no longer the country it use to be, although it clearly struggles to relinquish any of its old akhar as a result of being a former superpower. That doesn't mean it's going to start asking for forgiveness over historical issues, because let's be honest, if they apologise to us for Jalianwala Bagh, they'll need to start apologising for hundreds of similar acts they meted out on conquered populations throughout their history. It just isn't happening. 

Let's get India to acknowledge what they did to us only 40 or so years ago. If we win that battle, then the sky's is the limit.

[JSinghnz]

21 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

There's a reason they (as in Prime Ministers or Presidents) stop short of an unequivocal, "I'm / We're sorry for what we did," because from a legal perspective it could be seen as an admission of wrongdoing on behalf of the country they represent, and therefore open the door to a legal challenge that might result in a hefty financial settlement running into hundreds of millions or more.

It shows a woeful understanding of geo-politics if we're expecting an apology -- which would most likely be directed to India who doesn't really give a poo about Sikhs -- especially when there's an unspoken and implicit agreement between the two countries when trade contracts are awarded that any such untoward and thorny diplomatic issues will be avoided if smooth business, trading, and IMMIGRATION arrangements are to be upheld for the benefit of both nations.

Britain is not Canada. Canada, with all due respect, is a weak nation that doesn't have the history or standing on the international stage that Britain had; HAD. Britain is no longer the country it use to be, although it clearly struggles to relinquish any of its old akhar as a result of being a former superpower. That doesn't mean it's going to start asking for forgiveness over historical issues, because let's be honest, if they apologise to us for Jalianwala Bagh, they'll need to start apologising for hundreds of similar acts they meted out on conquered populations throughout their history. It just isn't happening. 

Let's get India to acknowledge what they did to us only 40 or so years ago. If we win that battle, then the sky's is the limit.

An apology now will for something done 100 years ago will not make the pommies liable to pay anything to anyone. Canada has the moral strength to apologise and hence is a much stronger nation than England.