I suspect if your version is more accurate he would have taken the time to compose himself and re-do the letter, I certainly would have. My handwriting is poor, as is my spelling so on the infrequent occasions when I do handwritten I take particular care. Yes it takes longer but that is something I have to live with. I just do not see any decent excuse for that letter crossing his desk, it shows a lack of care. I am sorry I do not see my MP as the victim in this, nor do I see any justification for any one to act as his appologist.

What's wrong with his grammar? You could argue that "is" would have been better than "was", but that's nowt to do with grammar. If you're hinting at "were" then you're simply wrong.

On the main topic, I never thought I'd feel any sympathy for Brown, but I'm coming close to it today. Yes, he apparently misspelt the lady's surname. Worse, he went on to make a mess of her son's Christian name, at which point he should have torn up the letter and started again. But, while these blunders are simply yet more evidence of the man's appalling ineptitude and total lack of 'situation awareness', to suggest that they were a deliberate insult is ludicrous. And I share the opinion of many here that The Sun also has a lot to answer for.

Sorry just to add, not that I am bringing anything into question, but Gordon Brown did pronounce the surname JAMES not JANES quite clearly I think it was during PM's question time. I am not saying this was done on purpose, but I think the mistake is that he was ill briefed / informed of the surname or he just incorrectly read it.

That was prior to him writing the letter or around and about the same time. Obviously after this all came out he has been very careful to pronounce the family name correctly.

Why would anyone that has only written 8 or so lines not just start again ? (when he corrected the spelling of Jamie) The letter carries much more weight when you know a very busy person has taken time out to sit, think, write and check what they are about to send.

I think all of this talk about GB not having good vision is just detracting from the issue. If his writing is illegible then type, I would rather have a typed signed letter with personal text. The letter he wrote was illegible, in thick black pen, and rushed from what I have seen.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I am nobody's apologist. But "he could have taken more care" is a good old walk from "any old rubbish will do".

Annoyingly, I have spent time doing what could have been seen as fighting his corner, when actually I am with Fsj on this - it is a non-story for the professionally outraged.

I'm not sure who are the 'close advisers' to the hapless oaf Browne, but with the number of nonsenses occurring recently I think that they may deliberately be 'dropping him in it'.

It is noticeable that after a day or two of letting the 'sh1te' get well spread around, the repugnant and wholly evil Mr. Mandelson will appear all over the media smarming a 'defence' of the indefensible Browne.

Plenty of times I've hand-written something, made a c0ck-up, cursed aloud, thrown it in the bin and started it again. Especially on initial officer training doing the Defence Writing homework!

Sounds as if he was copying a script, either spoken or written, and just didn't want to go back to the start.

However, this is not so much about the failings of one particular letter, as the failings in defence as a whole. This goes back to 2003 with the death of Sgt Steve Roberts, due to a lack of body armour, and continues throughout many other deaths. Add to that the uncertainty over the strategic direction of the Afghan mission (remember the Iraq war lies and the farce of the occupation) and it is easy to see why the general public is unhappy and why bereaved relatives are driven to fury.

The Sun does not set a political agenda, and hasn't since the 1990s and the wranglings over the Euro...before that it was the Loony Left (which Labour have never forgiven). The exception is the BBC and the licence fee, which News International have a commercial interest in opposing. It follows the views of its readership, and is doing so in this case.

I think Mrs Janes knows exactly what she is doing, as does the Sun newspaper, but I do not believe her grief is being exploited. It's fair enough to suspect the tabloids (particularly since the Mirror photos) but this campaign may succeed where other attempts (even by CGS) have failed. There is some news about hastening a Chinook purchase....apparently the Treasury may sign off the replacement costs for the two Chinooks lost...they were lost some months ago, so why didn't they bloody well sign it off before now? Likewise, the UK has been operating in Afghanistan since 2001, this operation has been running since 2005, the IED threat was encountered in Iraq (and in Northern Ireland prior to that) so why the sudden rush this year, 2009?

The only time this government ever does the right thing is when it is more awkward politically not to do so, and when there is no way to spin it otherwise. This usually involves public controversy...as in this case.

Rather than a non story it is yet another example of Brown trying to spin his way out of trouble and having to give in when he realised he had lost the battle. The apology 24 hours earlier would have killed the whole thing dead but as ever Brown botched it, yet another display of hi incompetance. All of a sudden he can hardly see, it was just a month or so ago it was claimed there were no problems with his 'seeing' eye. The he tries to hide behind the death of his daughter, is nothing sacred.

Rather than a non story it is yet another example of Brown trying to spin his way out of trouble and having to give in when he realised he had lost the battle. The apology 24 hours earlier would have killed the whole thing dead but as ever Brown botched it, yet another display of hi incompetance. All of a sudden he can hardly see, it was just a month or so ago it was claimed there were no problems with his 'seeing' eye. The he tries to hide behind the death of his daughter, is nothing sacred.

Maxi - Face it. Making gratuitous and ignorant assumptions about the circumstances in which Brown wrote the letter (e.g. "hastily written", "dashed off", "necessary evil", etc.), while presuming his attitude to personal tragedy (the fact that he is no stranger to losing a child is indisputable) and deliberately conflating his poor hand-writing with his political outlook is failing spectacularly. The boorish, often irrelevant rantings of those such as Oil_Slick are doing the Sun's misconceived campaign no favours either. Take a look at the comments linked below. Their tenor clearly indicates that the vast majority of the public regards this distasteful villification of Brown's motives as unfair, unjust and definitely un-British:

BBC Have Your Say
Daily Mail

and EVEN...

The Sun
The Sun (2)
The Sun (3)

There are many more deserving issues at stake. Time to let this one lie before Brown earns even more sympathy (and possible votes) at the expense of the Forces.