Sorry is the hardest word…

... but sometimes it has to be said all the same.

Last week I wrote a blog-post entitled 'My, what sound principles' - you can read it for yourself, a few blog-posts below this one - and though I will stand by much of that article, I now realise it was written in a moment of anger... and let's face it, that is never a very wise thing to do.

Much has been said and written about it in the meantime, and given the flurry of comments and dirty looks I have since received, I decided to go back and check what all the fuss was about.

Hmm, well, yes, I fear that particular blog-post did contain a few rather outrageous exaggerations, for which an apology to Dr Lawrence Gonzi is now very clearly in order.

But first, a few clarifications. It is true that equipment went missing from government offices in the transfer of power; though I admit I exaggerated the scale of this misdemeanour by extending it (in what I can only describe as a 'lapsus' on my part) also to the office furniture.

It is NOT true, however, that this theft was carried out by Lawrence Gonzi in person. And if the fact that I suggested as much were not in itself borderline lunacy, I might be tempted to defend it only on the grounds that it would at least make a good cartoon. (I can see it already: Gonzi as one of the Gaffarena Brothers, making off with the sofas and the chandelier...)

Sadly, however, it IS borderline lunacy to suggest such a ridiculous thing, and even I - borderline lunatic that I am - can fully understand that.

The only explanation (I won't call it a 'defence', because it isn't one) for the slip-up is that I evidently took the concept of ministerial responsibility for the actions of underlings several billion steps too far.

In any case, Gonzi is obviously not a thief of the kind I very foolishly implied in that article. And if gave the impression that he is one, this was clearly a grave mistake on my part.

As for the other bits - especially the part where I quote Robert Arrigo's claims that a 10^th district candidate may have used public funding - that it is a different story, and I stand by all the other assertions made in the rest of the article.

But not the part about Gonzi being a thief. That part I would ideally like to go back in time and 'unwrite', if only it were possible to do so. Sadly, however, it is not possible to do anything of the kind. So I can only do the next best thing, which is to fully retract the statement, and - for what it's worth - extend sincere apologies to Lawrence Gonzi for any offence caused.

And I really mean that, by the way...