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

Originally Posted by sfub

Although I have no time for The Sun, or indeed any of the Red Tops, I have found the conversation between Brown and Mrs Janes interesting; I'm amazed at how tongue tied a man in his position is.

You make, of course, the assumption that the conversation has been accurately recorded and transcribed.

Recording without consent is of course illegal. That apart, unless the mother is gifted in shorthand, I assume she had the phone on loudspeaker with some journalist merrily scribing away as they spoke.

It is natural for mothers to lash out when in grief. Most, however, don't try and score political points at the same time, and even fewer do it for potential financial gain, in a pre-determined, pre-planned and calculating fashion.

Christina Schmidt set the benchmark - this woman falls short by a considerable margin.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Her husband needs to get a grip of her if you ask me. Not one other family has complained about his grammar or handwriting. He spelt her surname wrong by a genuine mistake. She should see the hand written letter for what it is intended to be and stop getting on her high horse.

I await replies from hand-wringers and wailers.

You missed out grief whores

Originally Posted by Walt_waltberg_walterton

Gordon Brown was wrong to SEND out a letter so badly written and illegeable (should have been checked).
.

Yes, it certainly should have been. :D

Originally Posted by johnboyzzz

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Her husband needs to get a grip of her if you ask me. Not one other family has complained about his grammar or handwriting. He spelt her surname wrong by a genuine mistake. She should see the hand written letter for what it is intended to be and stop getting on her high horse.

I await replies from hand-wringers and wailers.

You missed out grief whores

They'll be along shortly, as soon as the timetable for the Outrage Bus is finalised.

Is it not illegal to record a private phone call without informing the other party of that fact?
Exploitation for the suns own agenda springs to mind, personaly I would want to keep my own grief private unless a provable injustice had occured which could affect others.

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

It is natural for mothers to lash out when in grief. Most, however, don't try and score political points at the same time, and even fewer do it for potential financial gain, in a pre-determined, pre-planned and calculating fashion.

I wonder what the mothers of others soldiers lost on operations make of her attention seeking ways.

I imagine the rest of them told the Scum to do one, or at least their VO did it for them before the press could get their hooks in.

Originally Posted by TheHatsRevenge

Is it not illegal to record a private phone call without informing the other party of that fact?

I replied to that one yesterday on another thread

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewto.../start=20.html

Ding Ding!

Originally Posted by Walt_waltberg_walterton

Gordon Brown was wrong to SEND out a letter so badly written and illegeable (should have been checked).

Easy mistake to make isn't it......???

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Christina Schmidt set the benchmark - this woman falls short by a considerable margin.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Sangreal

Mum of Guardsman Jamie Janes tears Brown a new a***hole

No she didn't. All she did was lose any remaining dignity she may have had over the death of her son.

It would be interesting to know how much money she has been paid by The Sun to be so grief stricken, yet unusually au fait with Chinook Mk IIIs and CASEVACs. I've been in the Army for 14 years and my mother couldn't tell you what Cap-badge I was!

On that note the MK3 comment did come from her husband. Her sons being 5th generation military she probably does know more than most.

Although i am not in disagreement with you, it does seem she was guided.

Originally Posted by Walt_waltberg_walterton

His conversation with Mrs Janes should have been a straight appology, with an offer to meet and discuss things in person. Not what seems to be a 13 minute arguement.

Got it in one. If he'd simply apologised for having shocking handwriting and admitted to being personally very distressed whenever writing one of these letters he would have a) put an end to it and b) gained some sympathy.

He couldn't help himself and reverted to deceit and obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Roger_The_Cat

Originally Posted by chimera

Originally Posted by pombsen-armchair-warrior

Christina Schmidt set the benchmark - this woman falls short by a considerable margin.

Well said.

Christina Schmid did too

....which takes us nicely back to the origin of the outrage.

Originally Posted by GoodIdeaAtTheTime

Originally Posted by Walt_waltberg_walterton

His conversation with Mrs Janes should have been a straight appology, with an offer to meet and discuss things in person. Not what seems to be a 13 minute arguement.

Got it in one. If he'd simply apologised for having shocking handwriting and admitted to being personally very distressed whenever writing one of these letters he would have a) put an end to it and b) gained some sympathy.

He couldn't help himself and reverted to deceit and obfuscation.

You must feel very privileged to have been present during this conversation.

Originally Posted by Sangreal

No she didn't. All she did was lose any remaining dignity she may have had over the death of her son.

My Bold.

Don't agree with you on that mate. She just lost her boy. She can say what she wants IMHO

It's The Sun at fault here. For cynically using a Mothers grief to try and shift some papers. Throbbers to the core.