Thread: Nob Brown-mis-spelled dead Soldiers name in letter to family

Originally Posted by maxi_77

I think the point is that he cared so little he didn't bother to get the name right, he didn't bother to check the spelling, and he didn't try to make it legible. In other words he dashed it of on the basis that any old load of rubbish was good as long as it was hand written, ther was no compassion in reality.

It is completely and utterly impossible for you (or in fact anyone) to know what he was thinking at the time. He could have had frigging shaking hands and tears in his eyes causing the same problem. You are extrapolating what you know to what you would like to think without any evidence whatsoever.

Originally Posted by 3secondwonder

If there was any spelling mistake in the above - report me!

Your spelling looked fine but the grammar is suspect. However, as you are Bob on in what you say I will not draw attention to that........

Originally Posted by frenchperson

The Sun have been at this sort of thing for a LONG time. I'd love to know what Sergeant McKay VC would have made of The Sun following their published lies following the Falklands conflict.

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../Debate-2.html

....and full sordid details here (Column 561 half way down):

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../Debate-2.html

I'd forgotten about that. Very interesting. For the benefit of those who haven't searched the linked references, here is the relevant excerpt from Hansard demonstrating the Sun's track record with regard to the sensitivities of bereaved family members of service personnel:

Originally Posted by Hansard 3 February 1989

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury):...The situation becomes serious, however, when newspapers resort to straight lies. Many hon. Members will recall one such example involving Mrs. Marica McKay, the widow of Sergeant Ian McKay, who was posthumously awarded one of the two Victoria Crosses of the Falklands campaign. When the awards were announced, the Daily Mirror and The Sun carried interviews with the widows of the dead soldiers. The Daily Mirror presented the article as an "exclusive" while The Sun, always wanting to be one ahead, announced that it had a "World Exclusive". That was the newspaper's first lie. Under the headline "The Pride and Heartbreak of Two VCs' Widows", the story began: "VC's widow Marica McKay fought back her tears last night and said: 'I'm so proud of Ian, his name will remain a legend in the history books forever.' Hugging her children at their home in Rotherham, Yorkshire, she said: 'I'm proud of Ian's Victoria Cross but I'd exchange all the medals in the world to have him back.' "

If one were to reflect whether someone in Mrs. McKay's circumstances would say of her dead husband, "his name will remain in the history books forever", the answer would be no. What had happened was that some secretaries in The Sun's offices were asked to think up quotations of what they would have said in the circumstances and some obliging sub-editor fitted them into the text.

One would have thought that The Sun, found guilty of an obvious fraud, would apologise but it nearly escaped without criticism. The story came to light only because the editor dated the story by the phrase: "fought back her tears last night." On the night in question, Mrs. McKay was not at her home in Rotherham but in the Howard hotel in London talking to representatives of the Daily Mirror. Not a little jealous of its own exclusive, the Daily Mirror in a leader entitled "Lies, Damned Lies The Sun Exclusives", castigated The Sun for its cheap fabrication.

The affair was only referred to the Press Council by The Observer's diarist, who encouraged his secretary, Caroline Metcalfe, to complain to the Press Council. It was then that The Sun topped the lot and displayed a loose grasp on reality. Instead of admitting and regretting the falsehood, The Sun attempted to mitigate its action by complaining that its journalists had not been able to talk to Mrs. McKay because she was with the Daily Mirror reporter. The Sun's editor said that the staff were under strict instructions not to allow any harrassment of the widow and went on to describe an unpleasant scene at the Howard hotel. Sadly, it did not occur to anyone at the Press Council to point out that the unpleasant scene at the hotel was almost certainly caused by the appearance of The Sun reporters.

The whole thing is a non-story really. Except for those who love to whinge about such petty things.

UK Democracy held in thrall by a wealthy, powerful, lying c*nt for the last 20 years and the next 20. Petty?

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by maxi_77

I think the point is that he cared so little he didn't bother to get the name right, he didn't bother to check the spelling, and he didn't try to make it legible. In other words he dashed it of on the basis that any old load of rubbish was good as long as it was hand written, ther was no compassion in reality.

It is completely and utterly impossible for you (or in fact anyone) to know what he was thinking at the time. He could have had frigging shaking hands and tears in his eyes causing the same problem. You are extrapolating what you know to what you would like to think without any evidence whatsoever.

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.

Originally Posted by Roger_The_Cat

Originally Posted by 3secondwonder

If there was any spelling mistake in the above - report me!

Your spelling looked fine but the grammar is suspect. However, as you are Bob on in what you say I will not draw attention to that........

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.

Originally Posted by Democritus

Originally Posted by Roger_The_Cat

Originally Posted by 3secondwonder

If there was any spelling mistake in the above - report me!

Your spelling looked fine but the grammar is suspect. However, as you are Bob on in what you say I will not draw attention to that........

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.

Originally Posted by maxi_77

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by maxi_77

I think the point is that he cared so little he didn't bother to get the name right, he didn't bother to check the spelling, and he didn't try to make it legible. In other words he dashed it of on the basis that any old load of rubbish was good as long as it was hand written, ther was no compassion in reality.

It is completely and utterly impossible for you (or in fact anyone) to know what he was thinking at the time. He could have had frigging shaking hands and tears in his eyes causing the same problem. You are extrapolating what you know to what you would like to think without any evidence whatsoever.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by maxi_77

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by maxi_77

I think the point is that he cared so little he didn't bother to get the name right, he didn't bother to check the spelling, and he didn't try to make it legible. In other words he dashed it of on the basis that any old load of rubbish was good as long as it was hand written, ther was no compassion in reality.

It is completely and utterly impossible for you (or in fact anyone) to know what he was thinking at the time. He could have had frigging shaking hands and tears in his eyes causing the same problem. You are extrapolating what you know to what you would like to think without any evidence whatsoever.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by maxi_77

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by maxi_77

I think the point is that he cared so little he didn't bother to get the name right, he didn't bother to check the spelling, and he didn't try to make it legible. In other words he dashed it of on the basis that any old load of rubbish was good as long as it was hand written, ther was no compassion in reality.

It is completely and utterly impossible for you (or in fact anyone) to know what he was thinking at the time. He could have had frigging shaking hands and tears in his eyes causing the same problem. You are extrapolating what you know to what you would like to think without any evidence whatsoever.

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.

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.

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.

Actually if you had known jamie janes and the wonderful man he was then you would know that he would want his mum to make sure no other mother of a dead soldier would get a poor excuse of a condolance letter like she did for god sake people you are forgetting one thing JAMIE JANES DIED FOR US IS IT TO MUCH TO ASK THAT THE MAN WHO SENT HIM ILL EQUIPED TO FIGHT A WAR COULD AT LEAST GET THE FAMILY SURNAME AND JAMIES NAME SPELT CORRECTLY if you think it is to much to ask then all i can say is im sorry my friend died for this country i would rather have him here then have to listen to one more person slag his mother off...