I think she needs to get over it. She's making a mountain out of a molehill.
Gordon Brown has SHED LOADS of stuff to write as it is, he - rightfully - decides to personally try and console the death of a brave young man , spells a few words wrong (no doubt having a tired wrist from writing so much, probably tired) and she sells it to the papers.
Sometimes I wonder why the man bothers doing anything he doesn't *have* to.
I think she needs to get over it. She's making a mountain out of a molehill.
Gordon Brown has SHED LOADS of stuff to write as it is, he - rightfully - decides to personally try and console the death of a brave young man , spells a few words wrong (no doubt having a tired wrist from writing so much, probably tired) and she sells it to the papers.
Sometimes I wonder why the man bothers doing anything he doesn't *have* to.
Again, it is MOD Protocol that the Prime Minister sends a letter of condolence to the next of kin.
According to this in Great Britain 4 847 people share the surname Janes it is the 2 046th most common name in Great Britain and most live in Brighton and Hove.
Whereas 151 855 share the surname James it is the
28th most common name and most live in Greater London
Yes, but it doesn't have to be handwritten. It could be typed and just signed.
Tradition dictates it is handwritten, whether it is coming from the Prime Minister, senior service officer, unit CO or any other official source.
Were it otherwise why doesn't Brown avail himself of the opportunity to have it typed up, especially if, if you believe some posters, the errors were a result of his visual impairment? A simple solution (with a simple explanation) that could have avoided all this grief.
According to this in Great Britain 4 847 people share the surname Janes it is the 2 046th most common name in Great Britain and most live in Brighton and Hove.
Whereas 151 855 share the surname James it is the
28th most common name and most live in Greater London
Tradition dictates it is handwritten, whether it is coming from the Prime Minister, senior service officer, unit CO or any other official source.
Were it otherwise why doesn't Brown avail himself of the opportunity to have it typed up, especially if, if you believe some posters, the errors were a result of his visual impairment? A simple solution (with a simple explanation) that could have avoided all this grief.
Any grief is upon this mother who is being exploited by a trashy newspaper.
That is the real story here.
How low can a newspaper stoop with it's petty vendettas and use a woman under these tragic circumstances to score political points?
As I said earlier, I put this women's reactions down to grief and also said, she may well regret being used in this way in years to come. Whereas, the Sun newspaper doesn't give a fig leaf for anyone's death as they have blatantly shown in the past.
Any grief is upon this mother who is being exploited by a trashy newspaper.
That is the real story here.
How low can a newspaper stoop with it's petty vendettas and use a woman under these tragic circumstances to score political points?
As I said earlier, I put this women's reactions down to grief and also said, she may well regret being used in this way in years to come. Whereas, the Sun newspaper doesn't give a fig leaf for anyone's death as they have blatantly shown in the past.
Any grief is upon this mother who is being exploited by a trashy newspaper.
That is the real story here.
How low can a newspaper stoop with it's petty vendettas and use a woman under these tragic circumstances to score political points?
As I said earlier, I put this women's reactions down to grief and also said, she may well regret being used in this way in years to come. Whereas, the Sun newspaper doesn't give a fig leaf for anyone's death as they have blatantly shown in the past.
I'm inclined to agree. Whilst I obviously feel sorry for her loss, I really feel she is being used. The Sun and Murdoch's empire have made quite clear where their interests lie. Brown made a personal apology - what more can he be expected to do. I'm sure he'll be far more careful next time and probably get everything typed out to avoid any confusion. Shame really as a handwritten letter seems far more personal.
BTW I can ever decipher the handwriting of an average doctor either. But maybe that's just me.
Not read all the threads on this so may be repeating. This was the lead story on the ITV early evening news. For gods sake, there are far more important things going on.
I am no great fan of Brown but do think he's been crucified for this. It sounds like a genuine mistake, yeah it could have been proof read etc but it wasn't. The mother is making a meal out of this. She's not the only one that has lost a loved one in this wretched campaign but a wrongly spelt letter should not diminish the memory of her son as she is making out.
Standard procedure for these letters is that a junior staff member types the letter up, it is then proofed by at least one senior staff before being given to senior officer/minister to copy out verbatim in their own handwriting.
I almost feel you have made that up. It would then be checked before sending if the case.
The Sun does not look god for Brown tomorrow, on the front page it describes the phone call as a 13 minute arguement, not an apology.
Total fool of Brown. He knew she was out to get him and all he seems to have achieved was making more money for her and The Sun.
I assume she recorded the call!
If Rupert Murdoch really cared that much about personalised letters to the families of the bereaved, Fox News would have been as vicious to Donald Rumsfeld over sending out a standard printed letter with no signature. However Murdoch's Fox News were cheerleaders for the Bush Admistration.
"US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Admits using a machine to sign Iraq condolence letters
...he had used a machine to sign letters to relatives of more than 1,000 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Mr Rumsfeld admitted that in the past he had not personally signed the letters of condolence."
This is such a delicate issue to try and figure out but from what I've seen and read, I think this woman is being exploited by The Sun newspaper in a desperate attempt for the newspaper to slur Gordon Brown. :mad:
My heart goes out to this woman who has lost her son and she is obviously still grieving, but she shouldn't have then contacted The Sun to make a big issue about it, and now she has recorded the telephone call that Gordon Brown made to her. It leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth. She should have taken this issue up privately with Downing Street but to run to a rag is just wrong.
It just think that it is such a disgrace on this country's press that The Sun has appallingly exploited this woman and then they decided to print the story the day after Rememberance Sunday when public feelings with regards to the military are at a high state, the headline on the front page of yesterdays Sun was very personal and shouldn't be allowed.
I don't think anybody, let alone a PM, would be so callous and uninterested when writing a letter of condolence. It's such a shame the direction of which The Sun is heading, just when I thought it couldin't sink any lower.
I wonder if she recorded that herself, or whether she used equipment supplied by the Sun... Either way, it kind of leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.
Comments
Gordon Brown has SHED LOADS of stuff to write as it is, he - rightfully - decides to personally try and console the death of a brave young man , spells a few words wrong (no doubt having a tired wrist from writing so much, probably tired) and she sells it to the papers.
Sometimes I wonder why the man bothers doing anything he doesn't *have* to.
Yes, but it doesn't have to be handwritten. It could be typed and just signed.
Absolutely.
I find it quite admirable that he hand writes each one.
To then go on a mass hatred campaign saying "it destroys the memory and honour of Jamie" is absolutely mind numbing.
Whereas 151 855 share the surname James it is the
28th most common name and most live in Greater London
http://surname.sofeminine.co.uk/w/surnames/surname-janes.html
So perhaps it was an easy mistake to make especially as it is such an uncommon name.
Were it otherwise why doesn't Brown avail himself of the opportunity to have it typed up, especially if, if you believe some posters, the errors were a result of his visual impairment? A simple solution (with a simple explanation) that could have avoided all this grief.
All newspapers have an agenda, not just the Sun.
If I post in emotive terms I am perfectly entitled to whether you like it or not.
You say I am using this mother and you find it sickening? I’m not sure why you think that.
I am writing exactly what I feel. If you have a problem with that then I’m afraid that’s just tough.
If it really bothers you that much ignore anything that I write.
Things that are proof read by others (professional proof readers) still occasionally come out with mistakes.
Maybe it should be a standard, sanitised, template printed letter aye, then that removes any risk of a spelling mistake ever being made. :rolleyes:
Any grief is upon this mother who is being exploited by a trashy newspaper.
That is the real story here.
How low can a newspaper stoop with it's petty vendettas and use a woman under these tragic circumstances to score political points?
As I said earlier, I put this women's reactions down to grief and also said, she may well regret being used in this way in years to come. Whereas, the Sun newspaper doesn't give a fig leaf for anyone's death as they have blatantly shown in the past.
I was taught in the 1950 and 60's and I dont ever recall proof reading being part of the school agenda.
Although I may have been but I just don't remember.
Anyway what was wrong with it
Well put.
No matter how sickening I may find a post, I will read it or not whatever the case may be. It's my free choice.
You are responsible for your own posting as am I for mine.
But I much prefer not to use the loss of someone's son the way a trashy newspaper has done if you don't mind.
But I much prefer not to use the loss of someone's son the way a trashy newspaper has done if you don't mind.
Would you have preferred it not to have been in any newspaper or on tv?
I don't care if this story was reported on tv or in a newspaper. But it's the way it is presented that counts.
There does not appear to be an apology from Brown if the front page is accurate
And there is a transcript of the whole call over three pages.
BTW I can ever decipher the handwriting of an average doctor either. But maybe that's just me.
I wonder if this could end up with the opposite effect of what the Sun intended?
I am no great fan of Brown but do think he's been crucified for this. It sounds like a genuine mistake, yeah it could have been proof read etc but it wasn't. The mother is making a meal out of this. She's not the only one that has lost a loved one in this wretched campaign but a wrongly spelt letter should not diminish the memory of her son as she is making out.
I almost feel you have made that up. It would then be checked before sending if the case.
Total fool of Brown. He knew she was out to get him and all he seems to have achieved was making more money for her and The Sun.
I assume she recorded the call!
"US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Admits using a machine to sign Iraq condolence letters
...he had used a machine to sign letters to relatives of more than 1,000 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Mr Rumsfeld admitted that in the past he had not personally signed the letters of condolence."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4110091.stm
My heart goes out to this woman who has lost her son and she is obviously still grieving, but she shouldn't have then contacted The Sun to make a big issue about it, and now she has recorded the telephone call that Gordon Brown made to her. It leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth. She should have taken this issue up privately with Downing Street but to run to a rag is just wrong.
It just think that it is such a disgrace on this country's press that The Sun has appallingly exploited this woman and then they decided to print the story the day after Rememberance Sunday when public feelings with regards to the military are at a high state, the headline on the front page of yesterdays Sun was very personal and shouldn't be allowed.
I don't think anybody, let alone a PM, would be so callous and uninterested when writing a letter of condolence. It's such a shame the direction of which The Sun is heading, just when I thought it couldin't sink any lower.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2722174/Mum-Jacqui-Janes-at-war-PM-is-humbled.html