APOLOGIES are all the rage. It is the British equivalent of Shia Muslims flagellating their backs with chains. The more abject the apology, the better.

Some apologies are wholly appropriate. There's nothing wrong with putting your hand up, accepting that you've made a big mistake and saying sorry in an honest, contrite declaration. But only if you believe it.

When did the trend start for politicians to grovel for actions and policies committed decades, even centuries ago? By the standards, ethics and moral code of the time, they were behaving normally. More recently Those who gave the orders and those who carried them out are long dead. For how long must today's young Germans keep apologising for Hitler?

The world particularly seems to enjoy Britain apologising for its empire, which is widely portrayed as an evil force. In fact, in many parts of the world, the empire was a source of good, producing efficient, modern government. If the world demands an apology, then round here we are still waiting for the French to apologise for the ethnic cleansing of Yorkshire in 1070, just after the Norman Conquest. Whole villages were put to the sword, livestock was slaughtered, crops destroyed and famine and disease decimated the survivors.

We cannot join the disgust hurled at Ken Livingstone for his refusal to apologise for a journalist who was "doorstepping" him. It's not often we're on the same side as the London mayor but in his heart he genuinely felt hatred and contempt for the recipient of his tongue lashing.

The fact that the reporter turned out to be Jewish did not reduce the anger felt by Mr Livingstone, whose barb was a response to the reporter's "I'm only doing my job" line of questioning.

Mr Livingstone has been widely condemned for not prostrating himself at at the altar of public self-humiliation. He meant what he said so why should he retract it? What he did not mean was a slur on the Jewish race in general.

Next time you call your boss a "slave driver" watch out. You may have to make a public apology.