I have been listening to the news and noting the pious, righteous fuss about Brown’s badly written letter to the mother of Jamie Janes.
The mother of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan has accused Gordon Brown of disrespecting her son’s memory by misspelling their surname in a letter of condolence.
Jacqui Janes, whose son Jamie, 20, of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, was killed by an explosion on October 5, received a hand-written note from Mr Brown, which began: “Dear Mrs James”.
After reading reports of her outrage, Mr Brown personally contacted Mrs Janes this morning to assure her that he had not meant any disrespect and had no intention of causing offence, Downing Street said today.
Well, no, I don’t for one moment doubt that he didn’t intend to cause offence. The man may be an appalling prime minister, but there is no evidence that these letters are anything other than what they are intended to be; letters of condolence. Brown chose to handwrite them apparently as this was more personal.
My handwriting is pretty appalling. It tends to look as if a post coital praying mantis has fallen into the ink and sprawled across the page trying to find its way as it hopelessly attempts to wipe the ink from its eyes, forgetting that its head has been bitten off. There is a reason for this; my brain is moving faster than my hand. Consequently, letters get missed and some are incomplete. It doesn’t matter how much care I take, the results are always the same; a semi-decipherable scrawl. Looking at the pictures of Brown’s writing, his is much like mine.
All in all, this is a classic example of manufactured outrage used by the Sun to ram home a political point. I disagree with the war in Afghanistan. I am appalled that politicians will cheerfully send others’ sons and daughters to die as political pawns in their power games. However, the British army is a volunteer force. Guardsman Janes was a volunteer who willingly gave up his freedom of choice and ultimately his life for his chosen career. His mother has every right to disagree with the politicans’ choices. She is, naturally, grief stricken, but running to the Sun because she objects to the scrawly nature of the prime minister’s letter of condolence demonstrates rather more disrespect than he has. Surely Jamie Janes’ memory deserves a little more respect than being dragged through the red tops in order to wound a politician who is already a dead man walking.
You won’t find me siding with Brown very often, but on this occasion, I detect a hurricane whipped up for no good reason, so I do. There are plenty of reasons to despise the man, but this isn’t one of them. This is pure faux outrage designed to create a bit of cheap publicity and to make the Sun look righteous in its moral indignation. Doubtless in Mrs Janes’ postion, I would be equally upset by my loss. I might be critical of a letter that appeared badly written and misspelled. But I would not be calling the Sun to tell them about it.
A pox on all their houses.
Snap.
.-= My last blog ..In defence of Gordon Brown =-.
Absolutely agree. I am second to no one in my dislike of GB, but I find this manufactured outrage very distasteful. GB is well known to have eyesight problems, and mistaking an N for an M on a typed sheet could be done by any of us with better eyesight. Not only that N and M are next to each other on a keyboard, so it is entirely possible he was given an incorrectly typed sheet of names anyway.
If GB had sent a typed letter he would have been accused of insensitivity there too. At least he made the effort to write a personal letter by hand.
My written “N”s and “M”s tend to look very much alike due to the speed of the writing – even when I try to slow down. It could be as simple as that – hence the attempts to correct apparent mistakes. I do that, too. And if I had to start anew every time I made such a mistake, I’d never finish.
“My handwriting is pretty appalling. It tends to look as if a post coital praying mantis has fallen into the ink and sprawled across the page trying to find its way as it hopelessly attempts to wipe the ink from its eyes, forgetting that its head has been bitten off.”
Mine’s not much better. The difference is, if I’m writing a very important or personal letter, I take my time, I double-check and I ensure it’s perfect before it goes in the envelope.
If I were suffering eyesight problems, I’d get someone else to check it over.
That’s why Brown is getting a well-deserved kicking. Because he can’t relinquish control for a second, and because obviously he can’t figure out why this sort of thing is worse than if he hadn’t written the letter in the first place.
.-= My last blog ..An Englishman’s Home – No Longer His Castle… =-.
If I’m sending an important letter, I type it and proof read it several times before sending. See my previous comment that overlapped with yours for the reason why 😉
Well said. This whole issue is silly.
.-= My last blog ..Britblog Roundup #247 =-.
They need to choose their issues more carefully.
.-= My last blog ..Late evening listening – one small step =-.
Bitch should be flogged, as should all responsible for seeing this in print. My hatred for Brown is strong, but manufacturing outrage to sell papers on the back of a dead soldier in the week of our most solemn ritual is below mercy.
Right there with you, LR. Another shameful and wholly counterproductive episode at The Sun, particularly when there are some many other reasons to have a go at Brown.
.-= My last blog ..Leave Gordon Brown alone (just this once) =-.
I don’t think you have seen the letter, he has clearly changed a letter by over writing it, so he clearly knows he has made at least one mistake, but instead of starting again, he has obviously decided that he has spent enough time on this and thought Sod it!
I think that the Sun had every right to make it a big story and as the BBC are running it as their lead it cannot be just moral indignation of the Sun. (The two clearly hate each other)
I have seen the letter. Indeed, I saw it before writing this post. it changes nothing. This is artificial outrage without any just cause. If anything it exposes journalists for the scum that they are.
It’s not artificial outrage, a woman has lost her son who bled to death as there were not enough helicopters to lift him out. She believes that Brown had a direct involvement in the death of her son. How would you go about trying to ensure that this does not happen to others like her son?
Her way was opened to her when he wrote that pathetic letter, it also probably focused her anger as well, and allowed her to take it to the Sun Newspaper. The real agenda was to highlight how badly our troops are equipped out there which she has managed to do with her recorded conversation with Brown. Good for her and good for the Sun.
I have no problem raising the point about equipment. This is a valid point. Using a grieving mother to do it is crass. Going by the general reaction I’m seeing, it has deservedly backfired.
Manufactured outrage is precisely what it is and while it is possible that more helicopters may have made a difference, no one can be absolutely sure.
I repeat; the Sun is the worst possible of the tabloids with the possible exception of its sister paper, the News of the World. This behaviour is damaging to the case against Labour. It is a non-story and any decent journalist would have refused to run with it.
As for what I would do; if I felt that strongly about a letter I received or the issues surrounding it, I would take it up firstly with the person who wrote it, not the bloody tabloid press. But, then, if I had anything to do with it, we wouldn’t have troops in Afghanistan, so the point is moot.
Hi Longrider normally I agree with you, this time I do not. Why would a mother who has lost a son fighting for his country, who died because of lack of equipment mostly caused by the man in the treasury for the last decade and now in charge of the country, not give him as bad a press as she can. If I had the chance, I would be as denigrating of Brown in whatever way I could, with any means available.
I’ll quote Mr E because he sums it up perfectly:
That’s why.
Take the man to task over his policy decisions, yes, but criticising his spelling and writing skills is counter productive.
——————-
As I write this, the BBC are interviewing Mrs Janes. To say that this public outpouring of her grief is mawkish doesn’t come close to describing it. Grief should be a private matter. This wallowing by the media is sickening beyond measure.
I think the point is if he can’t even get a letter of condolence right, how likely is he able to equip suitably an occupation force in hostile terrain?
That doesn’t necessarily follow. I would struggle to put together a decent handwritten letter. It doesn’t mean that I’m not competent at my job, though.
Ultimately the point I’m making here is; go for him on policy, not the letter. Quite apart from relinquishing the moral high ground, to do so has been proved over the past twenty four hours to be counter-productive as people are overwhelmingly responding favourably towards Brown. Not, I suspect what either Mrs Janes or the Sun were hoping to achieve.