When politics matters...

He is PM. He is thus meant to a) check things before he signs them and b) show adequate care.

If he has a problem with his sight then he should make sure somebody checks what he does in his role as PM. In this instance he clearly did not take the trouble and was guilty of showing great disrespect. It was not the misspelt name that is offensive but the fact that he could not be bothered to check.

He should be put in a more junior role where he would receive greater supervision in his work.

(Oh, and can somebody take the trouble to check what he signed and what he committed us to when he signed the Lisbon treaty and checking what he signs it clearly "not his strong point").

So, what exactly are you driving at Nick?

That compared to Kristallnacht and the fall of the Wall, that the constant drip, drip, drip of the dead coming back from a conflict the public is starting to lose support for doesnt amount to a whole heap of beans?

Granted, these were two significant events in history, no-one will quibble that.

But, I sincerely hope you're not belittling the loss of Jamie Janes and the way that events have been handled, not to mention the breaches of protocol, just simply with "well, lets not get too mithered, worst things have happened on this day than your loss."

Not to Guardsman Janes' mother they havent.

I'm sure you arent.


Are you?

Misspelling a soldier's name is unfortunate and ambiguous body language at the Cenotaph is possibly carelessness but take into account all the gaffs of his prime ministership and you have an exceptionally accident prone and clumsy incumbent who will ensure Labour's worst defeat next year since WW2

Unremarkable? I don't think so.

Even if Gordon Brown is not capable of writing a letter in proper grown up handwriting and spelling people's names correctly, presumably someone at Downing Street should be able to spell?

The fact that the letter got sent without apparently anyone bothering to check it speaks volumes about how little Brown actually cares about such things.

When our military personnel are dying for his wars, that is simply beyond the pale.

"The row about this letter and the one about the PM's apparent failure to bow his head at the Cenotaph are proxies for the much wider and much more important debate about whether "our boys" are fighting and dying in vain."

Nick,

No you are wrong. The row is about an idiot of a Prime Minister who we all know couldn't care less about the military and over a number of years has blocked them from getting the resources they need for the job.

Brown is anti-military to the core. That is what the row is about. The lack of courageous political leadership and planning and also the lack of equipment are key reasons as to why so many of our forces are being killed.

This row is about Brown's personal dereliction of duty towards those who have sacrificed their lives.

You list the catalogue of errors, excluding the spelling mistakes in this letter of condolence and thenm say:

So far, so unremarkable"

This remark is beyond contempt.

The idea that none of this really matters lies at the heart of this government's ever present malaise. If it doesn't matter why hand write the letter in the first place? This just compounds the belief that Gordon Brown can't be bothered.

Well if he casn't be bothered he should stand down and call an election.

He's a disgrace to himself, his party and the country.

Of course politics doesn't matter.

We live in a country that's increasingly ungovernable. We have anarchy on our streets with increasingly younger kids being done for violent offences.

We work in unhappy workplaces where we're mere numbers, not people. We can't guarantee a job for even a year yet we're allowed to mortgage houses for 25 years.

We are no longer allowed to bring up our children without excessive government intrusion. We aren't allowed to express ourselves freely thanks to liberal P.C.

In 20 years the population will go up by about 15% largely down directly or otherwise to immigration. Our resources will be overstretched - there probably won't be enough electricity to go round let alone medican care. And STILL no one is doing anything about it, with only one political party ready to try.

We're embroiled in unwinnable wars we should have left well alone. The money could have gone toward poorer people and problems in our own country, as could the £7 billion aid to Africa which does nothing to improve the lot of Africans let alone us.

So...what can politics do about all that? Answer: nothing.
Politicians tell lies. They bend statistics. Doesn't matter who is in power. They're in it for that power not the good of society.

You've hit the nail on the head in your closing paragraphs of this post. I agree with the insightful way you've flagged up recent events as cyphers for a public mood over Afghanistan.

But are there not also issues over leadership here and whether Brown understands that people - and names - matter.

On that letter, I feel you are giving the PM too easy a ride. No matter how much it is spun, isn't the only view that really counts that of the grieving mum?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/browns-letter-stinks.html

I think Brown is barely compis mentis at the moment and does not seem to be getting anywhere near the required level of support from his backroom staff - if indeed he will accept help.

I am sure none of the alleged slights were intentional but it all adds to the impression of a man barely in control - it is going to be a long haul to the election.

This looks to me like part of a typical Sun campaign. Most people (though perhaps not Mrs Janes) knows that Brown's handwriting is poor, and the reason for it. I've looked at the letter, and it's far from clear to me that the 'mistakes' actually exist. Whatever, the answer is obvious - the letters should be typed in future, then the Sun can complain that they are impersonal.

Again we go back to the sort of people who are advising the PM or not as the numbers of his mistakes continue unabated.

There are some things that are unforgiveable and if the PM has such poor eyesight then he should be accompanied by someone to oversee what he signs or writes at all times.

For instance you would not sign a will unless you knew exactly what you were signing. Comparison must be drawn to the Lisbon Treaty. Had he really read and understood what he signed.

One thing the British always did well was understand the protocol of the occasion. Was Brown told what he should do or did that momentous stubbornness get in the way of proper diligence.

Whatever, it now seems not a day goes by without another Brown cockup. If the job is too much for him there is always the obvious way out.

Totally agree with all the comments above. Watching the service at the Cenotaph yesterday -- one had to question the nerve of Brown even participating. The nation is tired of his bumbling along, his constant attempts for PR and spin [for example the Berlin Wall speech today], and his "I know what is best for everyone" attitude.
Nick given your connections with No10 isn't it time you gave them a nudge and told them that the country wants an election -- NOW -- before Brown and his team make any further unpopular decisions.

I am partially sighted and know how difficult it can be making sure when you write something, that it is in the right place on the page or whatever. But the fact that 1. He did not ask someone to check it for him if it is something he struggles with and 2. No one bothered to check it anyway shows a total lack of care on his behalf. Maybe on an internal memo it doesnt matter but for something of this importance, misspellings, crossings out and an apparent lack of care just seem to me to not be the actions of a caring leader. This is not a political point and I don't believe it should be used as such but the anger felt by the family is totally justified and the apology Brown has made is totally necessary.

Why did the BBC decide to run this as its top story on the 1 o'clock news? It was a non-story about the nasty campaign by The Sun (Murdoch) which is a shocking insight into the power yielded by conglomerates. What happened to democracy? Let the people decide on the true facts, instead of forcing it down their throats.

I never realised that Brown hand wrote letters of condolence - even President Obama doesn't do that. Why is it everything Brown does seems to be wrong?

Could this bias be anything to do with that chap who's now Cameron's press adviser who used to be a tabloid editor? Maybe?

I must admit I find your assertion that this affair is "so unremarkable" as more than a little insulting... you may just as well have written "yawn".

If this was about some trifling matter then perhaps I could understand it, but this wasn't.

It was a personal letter to the mother of someone who died fighting for his country. This should have been a letter to ease some of the pain that she is feeling. It should have been something that she could draw comfort from in the remaining years of her life.

Anyone can make mistakes, but there are some things where there should be no excuses - this is one of them.

This sums up all that is lacking in this government and Gordon Brown. Competence ! This lack is shown from the failure to check his letter, to the failure to support the troops in the field,and to his government's mishandling of the economy. The idea of British troops dying ,fighting for the benefit of people who detest and would happily destroy our way of life is indefensible. The suggestion that the British people need to be educated in the reasons for young men dying in Afghanistan is patronising to say the least. All most of the British people want is for the troops to be brought home, and for the people who threaten us in our homeland to be summarily dealt with, and removed from our streets. The idea that somehow the death of fine young soldiers in Afghanistan stops the threat of terror on the streets of Britain is to say the least misleading,and is more probably a deliberate lie designed to justify Labour's fawning to America and lack of care for the armed forces. Let Afghanistan and indeed Pakistan solve their own problems, and if, at a later time they present a threat to us or our allies, then that is the time to take action outside our borders.

The 'jock' in No.10 will never get my vote. He should not even be in post as no one from England had a vote in his present occupancy.

This is a very unfortunate incident and for the family of the dead soldier a gravely unpsetting experience on top of their grief.

Nevertheless, it is a sad error rather than anything else: Mr Brown has taken the time and trouble to write to each of the bereaved families since his appointment as PM and that says quite a lot about his sense of duty. I understand Mr Brown is the first PM to do so which is also a revelation about all thiose who came before in more recent times (Thatcher could have managed 256? Blair too with Iraq! And what about those poor bl##dy infantry in N.Ireland over 40 years!?)

I cannot agree with some on here writing about his (Brown) war - - it demonstrably is not - - the UK Armed Forces are in Afghanistan as a part of the UN approved and NATO-led campaign against the Taliban and Al Queda which began in 2001-02 - - and as a leading member of NATO the UK led by Blair and then Brown has kept faith with its allies. Mr Cameron has expressed similar commitment.

A lot more than can be said for the half-hearted, head-ducking efforts of the French, Germans etc. who even when their 'rebuilding' only troops come under fire still fail to uphold their NATO commitments. The French wont even send their helicopters to pick-up wounded troops of frontline National forces!

Mr Brown made a monumental personal gaffe and that is to be deplored: Doubtless he will learn from it and as he is visiting the 'Wall/Iron Curtain' remnants today it will give him further time in which to reflect on the sacrifices made by families and those who actively serve the politicians.

What troubles me is not the poor spelling, or the fact that Mr Brown failed to bow his head at the Cenotaph: it is the evident lack of interest in these tokens within No 10. It is as if 'seeming' to do the right thing (handwriting a letter, turning up at the Cenotaph) is enough. Brown is now widely regarded as gaffe ridden and accident prone, so that there is more need than ever to pay attention to the small things and get them right. You can't anymore - post-expenses and post-Iraq - spin your way into the hearts of the electorate, but you can create your very own gaffe-strewn path out of it!

I can't believe some of the crass comments people are posting on here just to score political points. I have a son who is serving in the RAF at the moment and god forbid the worst was to happen then in some small way the fact that the prime minister whoever it was had taken the time to write to me would help me feel he wasn't just a number. Yes I can understand how upsetting it must have been for for the family of Jamie to mis spell his name and I am sure as anybody would be he is truly saddened by his mistake. I am also however surprised that they chose to share this most private of moments with the Sun newspaper.

@9 "I think Brown is barely compis mentis at the moment and does not seem to be getting anywhere near the required level of support from his backroom staff - if indeed he will accept help."

He is clearly not getting much sleep so one has to "make allowances". He seems to realise that he has lost the next election and that is probably weighing heavy on his shoulders - not so much that he is losing his PM position after such a short time in power, but that he is also taking the Labour party down with him. We can only hope he does not have too many important decisions to make between now and the next election.

I strongly dislike gordon brown and consider him a poor prime minister.

The fuss over this letter though is way over the top and feels artificially manufactured in the grubbiest way.

He's made so many gtenuinely serious mistakes in his 2 years at the helm, that this just pales into insignificance.

I'm not too impressed with the Sun either - as far as i'm concerned they are exploiting the genuine grief & anger of a bereaved mother to push their austaralian/american owners political agenda.

As i say the whole affair is just rather grubby and leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

If they carry on with this style of witchunt they 're going to end up achieving the impossible & geberating sympathy instead of contempt for Mr Brown.

14#

Its got nothing to do with Coulson. This has been bubbling up for the best part of two or three days.

The Sun just got there first.

Why is it that everything Brown does seem to be wrong?

Because it invariably is.

The US, chances are, has a different protocol to the UK as to how they handle these kinds of situations. No-one is saying that Gordon SHOULDN'T write letters to the families - but crossings out, writing in felt tip pen, getting the name of the deceased wrong - doesn't any one working for him ever check these things so that he doesn't end up with this kind of backlash? Evidently not....

Its not just another handwritten memo to a civil servant, its a message of condolence from a Head Of State to a mother who has lost one of her sons in battle: a kid who is barely 20, had made the ultimate sacrifice.

He, or an MoD minister being at Wootton Bassett for the repatriation may have offered some cold comfort, but this is never going to happen.

My handwriting is also atrocious and I avoid writing anything but the briefest of memos to office colleagues, so I can sympathize with Gordon Brown in that sense. Where he appears to have erred badly over this letter was in the spelling and grammar mistakes and in not having it checked by aides, indeed Iain Dale is reporting on his blog that Brown often just puts letters into envelopes and sends them out himself without any checking from staff.

Brown should not be castigated for his writing, the result of poor eyesight resulting from a rugby injury, but with that in mind he should have had the letter typed why does it need to be hand written? Or he should have let Downing Street staff review it to prevent something like this from happening. We hear rumours that he is a workaholic who finds it near impossible to delegate and who has an explosive temper, perhaps this is why he has been doing this, he won't delegate and staff are afraid to bring it up?

Another self inflicted wound!

I feel that Brown's behaviour at the Cenotaph was far worse than the badly scripted letter. Apart from those in uniform who saluted, every person who laid a wreath bowed their heads in respect for the fallen, except for the Prime Minister. Surely he can't have forgotten! This insensitivity was unforgiveable and is one more demonstration that he is totally unworthy of his position.

19#

Have a look at Sky News where there is a scanned copy of the letter.

If your son is serving, have a think about how you would feel if a) you looked out of the window and saw the service car with two officers getting out of it in their best blues to give you the awful news... and b) then you received a letter like that.

After you'd already had ones from his Squadron commander and the Secretary Of State For Defence.

I for one sincerely hope it doesnt happen to you, or the parents of any other serving member of the forces, but spare a thought for those that it does do.

This isnt about politics, its about honour and respect for the dead.

jaycee @ 5

"Brown is anti-military to the core"

I agree

one of his good points

This is not just about Afghanistan, though. If Labour in general and The Crashmeister in particular were not so despised, this sort of story would simply evaporate. Instead, we have BBC news running it as the top story on some of their radio news bulletins.

I have no doubt that Brown did not intend offence with his cack-handed letter, and that he was not intentionally afronting the memory of the fallen by forgetting to bow his head, but they ARE errors. An administration that is in control of the media agenda can put out these fires pretty quickly and easily. One that is in terminal decline simply succeeds in fanning the flames.

Labour's prospects are now utterly hopeless. We have government by Official Opposition and significant parts of the country are bereft of democratic representation because their existing MPs have given up the ghost and are urgently looking for an alternative means of making a crust. On top of that Brown's so-called 'world statesman' role is also in tatters following his disastrous attempt to introduce a 'Tobin' Tax at the G20 Finance Ministers' conference in St Andrews.

Surely the Labour Party must realise we cannot go on like this for another six months?

@20 Deimos

That is the most worrying aspect - this economic situation needs real clarity of thought and the PM is coming across as being slightly dysfunctional at the moment. His ideas are being dismissed out of hand because no one has any respect for the chap.

Having seen the letter, a seven year old could do better, and his lack of respect at the reef laying yesterday all I can be thankful for is that he will not be in power next year.

At this special time of year, can I pass on my thanks to the current armed forces and all those that became disabled or gave their lives for us in the past.

Dear Nick,

My partner is a primary school teacher and she can spot something that has been made with no effort and no care. Can you ask your sources how long it actually took GB to pen this masterpiece, and when he did it?

She also says about how your work reflects what you are and how you feel about the things that you are writing about.

Xxxx

ps
If today you were to stand on a wall, you would be arrested under Health and Safety.

26. At 2:57pm on 09 Nov 2009, sagamix wrote:
"jaycee @ 5
"Brown is anti-military to the core"
I agree
one of his good points"
What a ludicrous statement. You personally have every right to be anti-military. Brown, on the other hand, is sending these young people out to die for some completely obscure reason, which definitely now involves a great deal of face-saving, and he should give them every possible respect.
Get a grip!

This has nothing to do with being "anti-military". I am anti-military in that I believe it is log pat the time when the human race should have found better ways of resolving differences by killing each other. It is long past time that we spend out limited resources on arms rather than so many other far more worthwhile calls on our monies.

However, that is not the fault of those individuals who are answering the calls of out warmongering politicians. They deserve our respect for what they are doing even if we disagree with the means our politicians are pursuing actions. The failing of war is the fault of politicians.

And then when those same politicians cannot take the time to write a decent letter when one of those they called-on is killed, taken away from his family and loved ones - well it is worse than disgusting. And then to think a phone call might "patch things up".

This is not related to "anti-military" but to somebody who cannot appreciate what others are sacrificing to help him pursue his wars. It is about caring for others, about feeling "empathy".

I think a return to the times when our leaders led our armies and when it came to war they were in the front of the front lines. Maybe going back to such practice would make our leaders pursue peace a bit more.

#5 I'll add another dimension to that. The overwhelming majority of thoses killed and wounded are son,fathers and Husbands. Not daugthers,wifes and mothers.

wonder what Harriet would be saying we should have equality there too, I bet not and if more daugthers,wifes ann mothers had been killed wonder what Her reaction would be.

Given she has stated that they are there to improve the lot of the afghan females.

These son,fathers and Husbands are fit to die and be wounded for there masters in power but not fit to be a father, grandfather to there own children or grandchildren in thier own land or even be involved a son with there own fathers and grandfathers.

it was interesting to see the make up of the albert hall last night and the Question Time with the odious BNP on both from london and there was n jerrymandering by the BBC at the alert Hall either

The events in Berlin during the 20th Century were indeed events that showed the good and bad sides of politics.

However, the more recent events in Downing Street have absolutely nothing to do with politics. This is about a Prime Minister who either doesn't care enough to have his letter checked, or is so arrogant that he doesn't actually care about what he writes. His behaviour at the Cenotaph on Sunday was at worst disrespectful, at best forgetful.

All of this is symptomatic of a man under extreme job-related stress. The mistakes he is making are getting worse and it seems that everyone around him spend much of their time dreaming up excuses for his somewhat erratic behaviour.

Brown's recent comments about the 'transaction tax' that made him something of a laughing stock, are clear symptoms of someone who has lost the plot and needs help, to retire.

Broon has made a mistake. Why is this news when he has made so many? It would be better news if we discovered he had done something without making a mistake, like tying his own shoelaces. His lack of confidence in himself, his party and the Untied Kingdom is infectious. It has become irrelevant whether he is the architect of the recession, the war or the lack of No. 10’s editorial controls this issue demonstrates. The simple truth is that this great nation will not gain confidence in itself until he is removed from office. Quite frankly, I'm no too bothered how that is done but the prospect of having to wait another 8 months or so is unbearable. A military coup would be almost palatable - if we had any soldiers left.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I di have feel for the mother, as a mis spelling annoys me anyway, but.......... to then go and tell the Sun all about it? For the Sun to shout in its way about the mistake and then to take it out of context?

First shots in the Sun printing "We won the election for the Tories" this is more what is going on.

Yes I am cynical about all of this.... But I will use my vote to as the services, for years in the past have died so I can vote.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"The reason this is a story is because of the widespread sense of doubt about the continued value of British forces fighting and dying in Afghanistan." Well, that's maybe partially true but a lot less than the whole story.

The real reason that this is being treated as a 'story' is that The Sun decided to run with it and use it as a stick to beat Gordon Brown. Having decided to back the Tories this is what they will do on every occasion until the next election. The worst part of the 'story' is that other organs including, to its shame, the BBC have felt they had to trail after The Sun. "Gordon Brown Has Poor Handwriting" wouldn't normally make the lead on the News. Shame on you, BBC.

32. At 3:09pm on 09 Nov 2009, DeimosL wrote:


And then when those same politicians cannot take the time to write a decent letter when one of those they called-on is killed, taken away from his family and loved ones - well it is worse than disgusting. And then to think a phone call might "patch things up".

--------------

Look, mr brown sent a hand-written letter, in which he made a mistake - but the letter itself was obviously meant as a positive gesture, there was no intention to offend.

Once he became aware of his mistake he then apologised in the most rapid, direct way available to him, by phone.Your'e taking him to task for making the phone call, surely it would be worse if no apology was offered.

As others have pointed out, there is no need for this witch-hunt when mr brown has made so many other mistakes of much greater magnitude.

And as i said earlier, i suspect the Sun has acted extreemely unethically in this matter, no doubt at the prompting of their proprietor. If anybody is lacking respect for our soldiers and the bereaved it is the Sun newspaper for cynically exploiting this womans genuine grief & anger to firstly sell more papers and secondly pursue their australian/american owners political aganda.

Unusual choice of camera angle in that video. I couldn't see anything. Suggests to me that He did bow a little and they chose to to pick the angle with him obscured by the cenotaph so you couldn't see it.

Enjoy your outrage.

#22 Fubar

I agree with you as entirely as I disgaree with Saga. However, please note that Gordon Brown is Head of the Government, NOT Head of State, much as he may believe he is entitled to the latter title.

I note with some measure of respect for him that he has apologised to Mrs Janes, though like many I am dismayed by his lack of apparent respect at the Cenotaph. He does just not seem to be aware of what is going on around him. Perhaps he will wake up on Friday to a nasty surprise?

Yes it is regrettable that Gordon Brown spelt names incorrectly, it should have been proofread, but then we are all guilty of not proofreading our posts aren't we?

It is also regrettable that he didn't bow his head at the Cenotaph yesterday, a reflection I suspect of his poor, or non existent social skills rather than a deliberate snub to our troops.

What is however unforgivable is that as Chancellor and PM he has continually under funded and under provided for troops in Afghanistan whether is is with helicopters, armoured vehicles or the number of troops on the ground, leading to unnecessary deaths and injuries for out troops.

We the British people through our Government have a covenant with the military not to ask them to do a job without the right equipment. This government has singularly failed to deliver in all areas of support.

For that Gordon Brown is not fit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. For that reason and that reason alone, he should resign.

I confess I'm actually starting to feel sympathetic towards Brown. I've said before that even though I disapprove of more or less everything he's done over the past decade or more, I still believe he's made the majority of his decisions with good intentions.

Similarly, I think it's a bit harsh on him for the press to imply that his actions regarding the letter and the Cenotaph are signs of indifference or malice on his part. Brown might be many things - incompetent, insensitive, tactless, indecisive, etc etc, but I don't think he's malicious. It's reached the point now where he looks like he enjoys being prime minister even less than we do these days, but is ploughing on so as not to go down in history as a quitter as well.

The best solution for everybody would be for him to call an election, now. It won't save his job, but he might just salvage a tiny amount of dignity.

38. At 3:22pm on 09 Nov 2009, StrictlyPickled wrote:
26 sagaminx

"Brown is anti-military to the core" ..... I agree

one of his good points
==============================
As someone who reads your posts regularly saga, I think you need to explain what you mean this highly offensive remark....

Usually your posts are just mischievous but harmless nonsense but given the topic and nature of this post, I think your comment appears as offensive as it is ill thought out. A PM leading a country in a war, and his anti-military point of view and general contempt for the military is a good thing in your opinion ???? You are a disgrace.

---------------

thats a bit harsh - if saga's anti-military thats up to him, its not a view i share, but its certainly not offensive.

lets not go down the 'if you question the actions of the government/army you are not a patriot' road - its led to some unpleasantness in the US for example.

Personal i see the military as a tool of the state, they and their actions are simply above moral judgement as ulimately they act for the government of the day, who are assumed to be representing the people.

Moral judgements apply to those who initiate the orders themselves, not those who carry them out.

Yes politics do matter but if you're going to play politics then you need to play it properly.

You do not send such ill prepared and poorly thought through letters to the mothers of soldiers killed in action and nor do you send the sons and daughters of this nation into battle to protect our way of life and our democracy in the first place without ensuring that they are properly and adequately equipped to do the job they were sent to do.

The sad fact that Gordon Brown has let us down in both cases is deeply shameful.

So, Nick - are you going to express an opinion, or just do a "Simon Cowell" and let the public decide?

Brown has a lot of bad points and I'm often one being critical to him, but today this criticism of him is plain unfair and below the belt.

It is well known that Gordon Brown is blind in one eye and has poor eyesight in the other - most sensible people would agree that poor handwriting is understandable in those circumstances. I am sure that if a typewritten letter was sent out, some people would complain that the PM wasn't showing sensitivity and had lost the personal touch.

And as for not bowing at the Cenotaph - the man has a disability - where are the howls of anguish about the veterans in wheelchairs not bowing??

People should get a life and start talking about the things which matter.

"The reason this is a story is because of the widespread sense of doubt about the continued value of British forces fighting and dying in Afghanistan. The row about this letter and the one about the PM's apparent failure to bow his head at the Cenotaph are proxies for the much wider and much more important debate about whether "our boys" are fighting and dying in vain."

I disagree; the reason this is a story is because it illustrates with perfect clarity that our unelected PM is not just a bit careless, or a bit clumsy, or that he has bad eyesight, but that he's utterly without any sense of humanity whatsoever.

Nobody with any humanity would have sent out that letter as it was, or refused to bow/nod at the cenotaph. These were actions of someone who's not just out-of-touch, but who's utterly inhuman.

pickled @ 38

that he doesn't have a great deal of respect for the Military, I class as a Good Thing ... a "feature" not a "bug" in IT parlance

the thing I dislike more than almost anything else in Political Leaders is when they have too much respect (and ANY is too much) for the "Powers That Be" a.k.a. the Establishment; Brown's kowtowing to the City, for example, has a lot to do with why we are where we are

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The BBC yet again rushes to defend the indefensible ie the fact that this incompetent Prime Minister is not up to the job.

In Nick's blog and the one o'clock news much is made of the poor state of the eyesight of the Prime Minister and the anti-Brown stance of the Sun.

The facts are that the Prime Minister mis-pronounced this brave soldier's name in the Commons and made at least 6 spelling or grammatical errors in the letter to his mother.

For unbiased reporting tune in to Sky news who are detailing all the Prime Minister's mistakes on this issue without spin.

Finally, or the BBC's chief political editor to state "So far, so unremarkable" in this context is breathtaking. Does no one at the BBC recognise the mood of the country and the frustration of being governed by incompetents?

"My partner is a primary school teacher and she can spot something that has been made with no effort and no care. Can you ask your sources how long it actually took GB to pen this masterpiece, and when he did it?"

What a stupid, crass point. You're a classic example of this level of classless attack.

I assure you, Thatcher, Major, Bush, Obama - they do/did not even write their own letters. They were signed, typed copies, probably done by some cronie in Whitehall. Bush did not even sign his. They were computerized signatures.

Sending individual letters for war dead is not on a leaders remit. Brown has gone above and beyond what other leaders do. And almost certainly does this sort of thing in the small amount of spare time he has in a day.

There is a lot of ignorance on spelling:

1: The mistakes are questionable. I'd say many of them are just speculating on his bad handwriting.

2: Handwriting is motor neuron based. What we think we are writing, doesn't always make the page. Luckily, when you have 2 working eyes, you proof read every single word you write, as you write it. When you are basically half blind, this isn't so easy.

I suggest a few of you try writing with your eyes closed, and see what happens.

please let's not endure any more drivel from The Sun about how it supports our troops. Its parent company does as much as it can to avoid paying tax, denying us hospitals and schools, and soldiers, helicopters and kit.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/302366.stm

...and they've been at it for years according to the BBC

i am afraid this is just another total mess up from a man whose brain has long since departed.There will be far more between now and an election in the spring.The country is like a ship just left to drift rudderless.Quite frankly if her majesty had anything about her she would disolve parlaiment,lives are being lost and the country is falling apart from economy to crime.This cannot be allowed to continue

Politics is cynical. Especially conservative politics. It's all based on hate and insult.

Being a tory media outlet is merely looking for minute mistakes, hyping them up ten fold, and then feeding them to the baying mob for political effect.

Only the smarter voters actually understand how it works, and are cynical about anything they read in The Sun or The Mail.

The Sun have got it wrong though. The tone of their own message boards is "this has gone too far". A lot of messages are even calling the paper "a bully". Have a read yourself.

The Sun does influence politics. But both ways. Personally, I really question anything the paper does, and any criticism of Brown like this, endears me towards the guy. As I'm thinking:

"Why should an itelligent person vote the way The Sun wants me to".

Sometimes the attacks are quite valid and fair. Anything like this, about "our boys", are normally an own goal for me.

Is Cameron being the voice of the sun actually a good thing? I don't know. I think it probably turns off as many people as it attracts.

The "so unremarkable" comment clearly didn't mean that it was unimportant, just that it was fairly straight forward, and that the real issue was the slow burn of dissatisfaction over the war.

I don't know what Brown's opinion of the military is, but then I doubt any of you do either, most of these replies are a master class in guesswork and bias (by the way I have disliked New Labour since the start, though I am not sure yet whether I dislike Cameron more or not), but bear in mind that Brown takes the time to write the note by hand (albeit badly, but my writing is pretty awful too). Clearly his office support has failed by letting the letter go out, but a hand written note is more than you would get in most countries.

I completely appreciate Mrs Janes' anger, but I am disgusted by the Sun's hijacking of it for Rupert's agenda.

"What is however unforgivable is that as Chancellor and PM he has continually under funded and under provided for troops in Afghanistan whether is is with helicopters, armoured vehicles or the number of troops on the ground, leading to unnecessary deaths and injuries for out troops.

We the British people through our Government have a covenant with the military not to ask them to do a job without the right equipment. This government has singularly failed to deliver in all areas of support.

For that Gordon Brown is not fit to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. For that reason and that reason alone, he should resign.
"


Sky nine

You start off quite nicely, and then slip into "the voice of The Sun".

Not to be cynical, but the Army has never been well funded. Labour increased funding hugely in their time in power.

The tories were notorious for defence cuts

and further to these subtle visual clues as to what someone's "all about" ... do you remember Brown going to his first few big "City Dinners" and how he made a point of not going Penguin?

much a Hooting a Tooting ensued, as I recall

but did that mean that he didn't "fall in" when it mattered?

exactly

"You do not send such ill prepared and poorly thought through letters to the mothers of soldiers killed in action and nor do you send the sons and daughters of this nation into battle to protect our way of life and our democracy in the first place without ensuring that they are properly and adequately equipped to do the job they were sent to do.
"

Wee Scamp

There are a group of people who understand life, and a group who don't, so take The Suns words on things.

I'd like to inform you that Brown is the first leader (certainly since the 1960s) to write personal notes to victims families. It is not in the remit, and neither Thatcher or Major did it.

You see how The Sun works. They have twisted the first leader to write personal notes (a nice gesture) to trying to connote that they are lazy.

As I said, some people believe the words, some don't

On the subject of the Berlin Wall, and indeed upon every subject under the sun, persons of fairly open mind tend to consider both sides of the story, which, unaccountably, one does not find in Mr Robinson's piece, which instead contains an emotionally charged linkage to Kristallnacht, on the pretext that he is making the point that politics matters, which, needless to say, is unassailably and self-evidently true.

Because politics matters, we must have both sides of the Berlin Wall story - must we not? - as politics without two opposing accounts is precisely the state of affairs that one might complain of in relation to the totalitarian nature of both the German Democratic Republic and the Third Reich.

We know that the capitalist account is that the nasty commies - and do particularly note the attempt at subliminal association with the nasty Nazis in Mr Robinson's article - could only have built the wall because, being nasty, they could not abide the thought of people being free and knowing the truth, the truth being apparently what the BBC says it is. But what is the non-capitalist view of the construction of the Berlin Wall? There is one. So why not mention it, particularly if it can easily be dismissed in the scintillatingly glowing light of the capitalist version of history, capitalism being the fount of all goodness and every blessing, except when it is not, of course, as now in the present depressing recession which is making so many people unemployed who within a communist state would not be unemployed?

The GDR was faced with two problems essentially, or so it is argued on its behalf:

1. Before the wall was constructed West Berlin was engaged in harassing East Berlin by means of a campaign of recruitment of professionals and highly qualified workers which the communist state had gone to the trouble and expense of educating and training. This eventually caused serious production problems and a labour shortage. As the New York Times reported in 1963, "the construction of the Berlin Wall caused West Berlin to lose about 60,000 well qualified workers who had been commuting every day from their homes in East Berlin to their work places in West Berlin." Note that the report acknowledges that all these people were apparently content to remain domiciled in a socialist state to enjoy the social security and community support provided by it while reaping for themselves the pecuniary benefits of employment in a capitalist economy without apparently being tempted to leave the GDR on a permanent basis although they were free to do so at that time.

2. In the 1950s the American Cold Warrior occupiers of West Berlin launched a campaign of sabotage and subversion against the GDR, the purpose of which was to undermine its economy and government. The CIA and US military espionage services recruited, trained and financed activists to do this work for them individually and in groups with a view to weakening support for the GDR government.

Although building a wall might go some way to addressing these problems, it is clear that it created others and played into the hands of the West, for which West Berlin was a foot in the communist door, eventually to prise it open and knock down the house. What is the result of knocking this house down? Go and ask the many thousands of unemployed and homeless people in the eastern European states, who, when these states were communist, were neither unemployed nor homeless.

Twenty years after the fall of the communist bloc the capitalist system is in a shambles which it seems unlikely to survive in its present form. Let us consider celebrating that as more and more of us enjoy the capitalist freedom to lose our livelihoods, our homes and our self-respect as the rich get richer and speculate away on the stock markets with taxpayers' money, creating another monster speculative bubble, which will burst in due course inevitably, leading many of us to envy the citizens of the German Democratic Republic and Hungary and so forth who all had jobs and homes and the fraternal solidarity of their fellow citizens, which is arguably worth somewhat more than the freedom to be exploited by casino capitalists for whom the recession is merely an opportunity to speculate more profitably at the expense of those to whose welfare and well-being they are wholly indifferent.

As post-Soviet Russians say, what the communists told us about communism was false, but what they told us about capitalism was true. Totalitarian communism failed, and casino capitalism is failing now. When the bubble bursts, stand well back and take cover.

As for the paltry subject of poor Mr Brown and his various misadventures in darkest England, you do enjoy being beastly to that poor man, don't you?

Clown, letter, Cenotaph, sums up NU LIEBOUR perfectly. A mess from beginning to end just like their 12 long, long, long, years, OF TRYING TO RUN THE UK, AND FAILING dismally.

Nick, it seems you have done it again. Half way down reading this blog, I realised where it was going to end up. That you can put the collapse of the Berlin Wall in the same piece as Browns latest blunder probably answers the question as to why politics has dropped down most peoples agenda.

When on the wall 20 years ago, did you fall and hit your head sir?

42#

The surreal thing is that it could all have been avoided.

Mrs Janes' would no doubt have taken more comfort from a dictated, printed signed letter, had Gordon's moral compass felt it absolutely necessary to say something. Thats all. Just checks and balances and a bit of forethought. Again, its not necessarily the sentiment that has let him down, but the carrying out of the sentiment, the implementation.

The Cenotaph... well. Seems to run within the party doesnt it? Michael Foot in 83, now this... and what Blair was doing there is beyond me. What capacity was the War Criminal there in? EU President-Elect?


And for those of you who are defending Gordon by attacking Murdoch - I dont excuse Murdoch's agenda and as I refer above, it would have been so simple to negate the effects of this that a child could have done it - but to go blaming the family is pathetic and low and does your cause no good whatsoever.

The parents are obviously grief stricken at losing a son at barely 20 years old, despite the fact that knowing that serving presents occupational hazard such as this - and she has two other sons also serving. In times of grief, sometimes people lash out, particularly if, for whatever reason something could have prevented their loss. Rightly or wrongly, the age of the stiff upper lip is in the past. Their outburst I can forgive and at the moment their loss is still raw.

Brown apparently has written to every family of every service person losing their life in action since he took over as PM. So, that makes it well over a hundred, easily. And this is the first one to have this result? So, how come this went so badly pearshaped?

Or have none of you lot who are so quick to rush to Gordons' defence ever suffered a sudden and unexpected bereavement?

Sounds like all this letter writing and Cenotaph stuff are pecadillos that show just how much the media and public at large really care about the state this country's in. Or is it that they simply don't know? I mean, the country almost bankrupt, anarchy on our streets, wars we shouldn't be in that are positively sapping our resources. We have a serious immigration problem that'll REALLY sap our resources in 10 years' time. The extremists are at it again and America has now sussed that Al Qauda isn't in Afghanistan, it's everywhere...

...and this letter writing (which it does not take a Philadelphia lawyer to tell you was never intended to offend; rather it was a well-meant gesture) and not bowing his head at quite the correct number of degrees below the horizontal to be SEEN to be respectful, are news HEADLINES???

What? People have lost their sense of perspective!

I'm quite happy to voice my views of Brown and his many mistakes but worrying about the minutiae while the world's falling apart around us is sad. It would take something like a war on our soil to bring us all together again and focus us on truly important issues.

MN @ 52

"When you use the exact same rhetoric to attack on “handwriting” as you do on “national debt” then you kind of give the impression that your agenda isn’t policy. Just a deep seated hatred"

spot on, Mike

sexy blogging

@49
"And as for not bowing at the Cenotaph - the man has a disability - where are the howls of anguish about the veterans in wheelchairs not bowing??"

I wasn't aware that his disability stops him inclining his head.

52 Mike_Nalor

We all think that you are part of the Labour Party establishment, would you like to comment on your status and background?

You write:
"Thatcher, Major, certainly didn’t do that in our previous conflicts. Their cronies wrote computerized letters, and they merely signed them."

Would you like to either substantiate your comments or withdraw them? If indeed you are professionally involved with the Labour Pary or a member of it you have added to the furore.

One more thing, please dont tell me why this has become a story. You are not in a position to TELL me why a story is a story. You just report the facts and I will decide with my own thoughts why this is a story.

I am certain Brown is not a malicious person, I am also sure that he felt the personal touch would be a good thing for a parent to recieve. It does not take away the fact that he failed that parent in not even getting the name right. That is why it is a story.

Attention to detail is key in all walks of life and in this case death! Making these stupid defences of him is what dumbs down politics, not politics itself.

I was always told that in a rut, make sure every piece of work that leaves your desk is the best piece of work you have ever done, that way people know you are on the ball. Maybe yourself and the PM should think like this.

Sagamix:

I, for one shall never take anyhting you say seriously ever again.

How can you possibly come on these posts with your anti BNP, anti racist stance and simultaneously claim no interest in our military?

Who was it who held Hitler to account in the second world. How would you propose we should do it agian if faced with a similar facist or communist threat?

Your comments have often stretched imagionation but this degree of inconsistency goes a long way to explaining the impasse in which newlabour has found itself; so obssessed with polls they have totally lost the thread about the serious issues faced by this country.

If you try to weave every single argument into a poll leading ideology you will end up with the same inconsistent mess that is exactly where you and this government have landed.

You want to be hard on racists and the BNP but you give us no tools with which to fight the cause in the future.

Hopeless inconsistencvy and why newlabour are no longer fit to govern this country.

Casll an election.

49#

A disability? Now I've really seen some excuses.... The veterans who were marching past yesterday, some of those were disabled, some of whom had lost limbs, rather than their eyesight. Not that I'm belittling the blind, but I'm not making excuses for them either like you are.

If Her Maj, in her 80's can follow the protocol so can Brown.

@51
"that he doesn't have a great deal of respect for the Military, I class as a Good Thing ... a "feature" not a "bug" in IT parlance"

So, according to your warped sense of honour, it is perfectly acceptable for the man to have no respect for those he sends out to die. Particularly as the reasons for the current action in Afghanistan are so obscure. You really have lost the plot.

I read the Gordon Brown story in the Sun this morning and was disgusted by it. It was incompetent but not malicious.

Often times pride and nobility can be derived from saying nothing at all. If that were my mum, I would have been utterly ashamed of her conduct in feeding Gordon Brown to the lions. Her son has died and, for that, she deserves a free pass. But, she should look back and feel remorse in days and weeks to come for her disgusting behaviour.

This demagoguery is appalling but the Sun knows a vitriolic attack of the PM is a sure way to garner support from the ignorant majority. It is not worthy of a front page story and it no broader context.

I am glad to see some at the BBC appreciate that pandering to the ignorant majority and showing a flagrant disregard for the facts is not objective journalism.

45 goldcaesar

"thats a bit harsh - if saga's anti-military thats up to him, its not a view i share, but its certainly not offensive."

================================================

Saga is perfectly entitled to his anti-military view, but he is not the Prime Minister of a country that is at war, so it doesn't matter that much.

Gordon Brown however is the PM of a country at war, and the "anti-military" view - which saga seems to believe is a good idea for our leader to have - is a very serious issue indeed.

The letter which Brown wrote is only one small, but important, part of how he views the military, but is a symptom of a much wider problem. Most people on here seem to feel that Gordon Brown letter is offensive, and some are dismissive of it...... but only saga seems to think that the real attitude behind it is a good idea. I really do find that offensive.

Naylor, you're pathetic. I'd check your facts if I were you about the family handing over the letter for money.

SimonInverness: dont go trying to pull that line either. Its this blasted PM, HIS tax regime as Chancellor which has permitted this to happen over the last 12 years. Dont go giving us that bulldust about depriving us of nurses (for a change), helicopters and christ knows what else.


Blasted trolls.... They're like bloody hyenas.

My 11 points:

1: The Sun do use death and grief to score party politics hits. Their backing of “our boys” is one of the most depressingly ironic things in the media. Their policy on the army is generally determined on which government is in power.

They were notorious for celebrating and glamorising war “Gotcha”, and whitewashing death, during the Falklands, to back Mrs. Thatcher, and keep public support for her.
They use war and death to score political points. They always have. Their backing for war is totally dependent on who is in power.

2: Governments skimping on Army spending is nothing new. The forces have always been hugely under funded, and targets for cuts. Especially the tories times in office.

As above, this is only headline news for tory papers, dependent on who is in office.

3: Terrible own goal by The Sun. Even their own readers are commenting on “why this is a story” and calling it a petty attack, on their message boards. The only thing the Sun has done, has shown that Brown spends his personal time writing messages, and that he struggles with handwriting as he is half blind. What a scoop.

4: There is no remit for leaders to write personal messages to the fallen. As far as I’m aware, Brown’s probably the first leader to do it in the UK, in modern times. Thatcher, Major, Blair just sent out signed, typed correspondence. Probably whipped up by some Whitehall Admin Assistant.

The Sun has no shame in calling it “hastily written”. In writing it he has gone above and beyond that their darling Thatcher did.

5: The Sun have exploited this women, for headline news. But at the same time, I question anyone who is allowing these sort of personal messages into the tabloid press.

6: Brown has lost one son in the last few years, and the other has cerebal paulsy. I think it’s pretty callous to go on the attack about his “lack of grief” and “understanding” because he struggle with handwriting.

7: Blind people often suffer from lack of motor neuron skills. Just like deaf people struggle to speak (as they can’t hear what they are saying) blind people struggle with visible hand eye coordination.

In laymans terms, your body struggles with any skill, no matter how easy, if you can’t “check” what you are doing.

Deaf people can’t “check” what they are saying, so struggle with speech. It’s exactly the same with blind people.

Writing is your brain sending signals to your hands. It’s not flawless. The only reason most people don’t struggle with spelling is the basis that they check every single letter they are writing, instinctively. It’s a process of proof reading, letter by letter, visually. That’s what spelling is.

“I’ve written an A, is that right? yes. I’ve written an N to follow, is that right? Yes. I’ve written a D to follow. Is that right? Yes”

That’s how writing and spelling works. If you take away the ability to do these checks, it’s pretty obvious.

An attack on a blind persons spelling – as I said, you may as well be laughing at a deaf person, as they can’t pronounce words properly.

Poor form.

8: You can attack too much. And the more petty the attacks, the less people start to listen. Which goes for you as well voters. When someone is using the same ferocity to criticise spelling as they are public debt, people start to question the agenda.

9: I question The Sun’s influence. Reading message boards on tory papers like The Mail and The Sun itself, more people are feeling sorry for Brown over this than criticizing him. The consensus point being:

”He takes time to write personal letters at least. Lay off”

10: I personally wouldn’t vote for anyone who stands for “Sun values”. I think their criticism of Brown probably makes the guy more elect able, not less.

In all honesty, doesn’t Cameron suffer from the “plastic/pr” image enough without those lot cheesing it up even more?!

11: When you hire an ex Sun editor like Coulson to run your media campaign, expect tabloid sleaze like this.

Are you thinking about Cameron backing out of a euro vote at the minute? No. Job done.

Sleaze like this would have been saved up for weeks, to use, to get attention off of Cameron. And with Coulson running the sleaze, it’s hardly surprising that it’s some cheap shot on the back of “our boys” yada yada yada

It is interesting that Gordon Brown a Labour Prime Minister had difficulty in getting it right at The Cenotaph. I seem to remember that a former Labour Prime Minister, Michael Foot, also failed to reach the required standard at The Cenotaph because he was inappropriately dressed for the occasion. Must be a Labour thing !

"I disagree; the reason this is a story is because it illustrates with perfect clarity that our unelected PM is not just a bit careless, or a bit clumsy, or that he has bad eyesight, but that he's utterly without any sense of humanity whatsoever.

Nobody with any humanity would have sent out that letter as it was, or refused to bow/nod at the cenotaph. These were actions of someone who's not just out-of-touch, but who's utterly inhuman."


50

I disagree. It demonstrates how petty, and agenda driven most of the attacks on Brown generally are.

If you make as much fuss on handwriting, as you do Labour policy, people start taking your words with a pinch of salt.

Your sensationalistic words, are an answer to the question "who the heck believes anything The Sun says".

michaelbri:

here, here.

Parliamnet should be dissolved by Her Majesty.

This buffoon is sending innconet men to their deaths in Her name, without the necessary equipment and attempting to look like he cares with individual letters to their families when they are killed.

'Disingenuous' is the word that springs to mind. And it applies to much of the newlabour agenda from equality to multi culturalism.

Call an election.

#54 Mike Naylor

It seems to me that you must be a member of Gordon Brown's PR team because every time there is any sort of criticism of him on this blog, you go on the attack justifying everything he has done wrong. My guess is that you are one of a large number of people who spend time dreaming up responses to the ever increasing mistakes Brown is making.

In #54 you used Brown's poor eyesight as an excuse for his poor handwriting. Hogwash! My Grandmother was 94 when she died having been born and brought up in a working class family in Liverpool. Later in her life she developed cataracts in both eyes but was able to write totally legible clear letters to me when I was a serving soldier.

Brown is university educated and there is no excuse for the total laziness he has shown when writing this letter.

"For unbiased reporting tune in to Sky news who are detailing all the Prime Minister's mistakes on this issue without spin.

Finally, or the BBC's chief political editor to state "So far, so unremarkable" in this context is breathtaking. Does no one at the BBC recognise the mood of the country and the frustration of being governed by incompetents?
"


Hahaha that's made my day.

A person that has yet to realise that "For unbiased reporting tune in to Sky news who are detailing all the Prime Minister's mistakes" is actually the biased reporting!

That's my issue with right wing voting. They don't seem to get the fact that constant attacks on one party, are not the "balanced view".

People seem to think it's biased to actual cover stories from all angles.

Sky News is about as unpartisan of the sun. They censor out any liberal view points from their message boards.

I was reading an article yesterday about Browns idea for bank taxes, that he stated quite clearly were very provisional, and conditional on gaining support.

SKY news said something like "a humiliating snub for brown, that will surely bring back the question of his handling of the economy".

You know, that could be a Sun article!

As I said, right wing voters just want to read attacks. And get offended by anyone who doesn't join in with it

You're right about politics not mattering - and that's the sad part. For a great many people politics doesn't matter nearly as much as X Factor, the vacuous actions of celebrities or shopping. How much actual "political" content does The Sun feature compared to all this rubbish?

As much as I think Gordon is a waste of space I do feel that this is nothing more than Murdoch flexing his muscles in a bid to show his influence and, of course, make more money, a disproportionately low amount of which will contribute to the Exchequer.

"For unbiased reporting tune in to Sky news who are detailing all the Prime Minister's mistakes on this issue without spin"

Angus

Sky News are undoutabely the most biased, spin ridden news company in the country.

It only doesn't offend you so, on the basis that it's saying something you want to hear. Unlike this.

You know, when it's owned by the same company that owns the sun, and has people like Kelvin McKenzie as regular columnist (a guy who thinks anyone who doesn't vote tory is a trotsky-esque socialist).

I think this just demonstrates how agenda driven most right wing attacks on brown are.

When you come out with the same bile on handwriting as you do spending cuts, then it's hard to take your words that seriously. Sun and voters.

The only 2 outlets taking it seriously are The Sun and Sky News. Cameron's print and TV propoganda outlets.

Tells you a bit about:

A: How important it is.
B: Where the story probably originated from

Sky News normally moderates out left wing views (seriosuly, you could send 100 comments and none would make it on to their web site) but looking at the messages, most of them actually support Brown.

Which tells you what a gaff this move was by The Sun/Coulson

get rid @ half C

"the reason this is a story is because it illustrates with perfect clarity that our unelected PM is not just a bit careless, or a bit clumsy, or that he has bad eyesight, but that he's utterly without any sense of humanity whatsoever. Nobody with any humanity would have sent out that letter as it was, or refused to bow/nod at the cenotaph. These were actions of someone who's not just out-of-touch, but who's utterly inhuman "

you know how I sometimes make out my "Clown" moniker is a bit of light hearted fun?

well sometimes it is

"The row about this letter and the one about the PM's apparent failure to bow his head at the Cenotaph are proxies for the much wider and much more important debate about whether "our boys" are fighting and dying in vain."

No Nick, it actually shows the level of incompetence that this miserable failure has descended to. He could not even pass basic spelling and handwriting tests. This once great country needs to see the back of this disastrous, dishonest, disgraceful and dithering fool as soon as possible.

The gaff really being, the only time and place you would have got a handwritten prime ministerial letter in the last 40 years, if your child died in war, was from Brown's Labour party.

Thanks for revealing that to the world Rupert. Makes Brown look pretty compassionate if you ask me

I think what everyone is trying to articulate is that this letter (if it is as shown on Sky News) was not fit for purpose. It is NOT respectful because it appears to have been written hastily and carelessly, whether that is the case or not is irrelevant the letter should not have been sent in that form.

We are talking of a letter from our leader (whether we want him to be or not) to the family of a fallen hero, and believe me I think that is the right word, again whether we believe in the ultimate cause or not. The letter represents us all and many of us would never have sent such a document.

This reaction to the style and form of the letter to Jamie Janes' family reflects the way we are all feeling about many things that the government have done recently in our names, about the lack of respect for others that seems to permeate our government and therefore our society. The letter is a material confirmation of our current view of politics in The UK.

The perception of the Cenotaph incident is just a continuation. The bowing of the head should have been unambiguous as was that of the Queen.

#39 they are now going to reap there own whirl wind, dance with the devil and you'll die by the sword.

Often Blair and CO used the sun for there own ends re

Blunkett and Straw when Blair wanted a good story to bury the bad news the sun wanted to print, see C4 dispatches and Blunkett talking about this.

The there was the infamous Leo blair kidnapp plot to destroy father 4 juctice.

New labour getting a taste of there own medicine.

But agree this is not good for democracy one little bit, but we need some massive changes in this area just like the banks

I wish people would give Gordon Brown a break. He is writing to all families who have suffered a loss and writing these letters by hand. I appreciate that mistakes were made in the letter, but these are clearly not deliberate attempts to add insult for the loss. This is typical media attempts to raise public anger by taking a grieving mothers comments and launching another attack on the PM. If the prime minister finds writing so difficult on account of poor handwriting and eyesight, then the sentiment behind these letters is even greater. This is typical of the attacks that the prime minister receives - would they prefer Gordon Brown making no attempts to personally send his sympathies to grieving families of the armed forces? The answer is again no - seems like nothing sells papers like bad news and attacking people trying to be sincere.

50 Getridofgordonnow wrote:

I disagree; the reason this is a story is because it illustrates with perfect clarity that our unelected PM is not just a bit careless, or a bit clumsy, or that he has bad eyesight, but that he's utterly without any sense of humanity whatsoever

Yes, and apparently he spits on disabled people when he passes them in the street.

Get a grip! Those who dislike Brown can just about contort themselves into a position where this is a valid anti-Brown news story. But take it too far, as any contortionist knows, and you look ridiculous.

I think it's rather touching that he cares enough to hand-write a letter. As for not bowing at the Cenotaph (if he didn't, which is far from clear) - well he is a bit stiff.

Noticed how a few voices of sympathy are creeping in? Could be the Sun wot overdone it.

Poor Gurdon Browm.

#21 I agree with.
Brown may be rubbish, but there is a danger of overdoing the vilification and generating sympathy instead.

In fact I feel some sympathy for him myself - he takes the time to produce a hand-written letter and makes a mistake in the spelling (and also in not finishing words properly, which does suggest a slap-dash attitude more than the spelling) and is castigated for this.

I do have to wonder if the letters were genuinely from the heart or another attempt at cheap posturing. We will probably never know, but history offers some clues.

The state of education in this country we don't have enough people who could write a dictionary, let alone know much of teh contents of one, but it does seem symptomatic of the "I know best" mentality of Brown that he would simply chuck it in an envelope unchecked. I wonder how many of Santa's little helpers would want to tell him that he mis-spelled something, or that his grammar was wrong. Especially when he has to rewrite a whole handwritten letter. He doesn't strike me as the type to say "Oh ok, well spotted - thanks for that".

And 9th November... interesting... that's what I always think of when someone talks to me about "9/11". I ask... "So what happened on the 9th of November then?".

After all, I'm British, not American, and I realise that days are smaller units than months (which are smaller units than years). Therefore 9/11/2001 is the 9th of November.

Now let's get to the real issue out there:

The Sovereign can't open the new session of parliament because she knows this parliament is guilty of financial impropriety.

If she opens it knowing this to true she automatically condones it.

Parliament is guilty of financial impropriety and we are going to sit and watch the Sovereign reopen it? Parliament organised a system of personal financial gain and attempted to withold information about it from the taxpayers who elected it. More importantly the man who resisted was Gordon Brown.

This letter from constitutional campaigner Malcolm Blair-Robinson has been sent to all three party leaders today but particularly Gordon Brown has been asked to dissolve parliament to resolve the issue.

Let's see him send a hand written letter to Her Majesty explaining his position on this one. And let's hope he gets her name right.

Dissolve parliament.

Nick

Regarding the letters he writes to the families of dead soldiers. Firstly, good on him to do so with a personal touch. Secondly his approach to his difficulty in seeing properly by using a felt pen so he can see words better is not ideal.

He ought to use a conventional pen but with a magnified sheet with light which will enable him to see better:

https://www.connevans.co.uk/store/viewProduct.do?id=1072519

These are frrequently used in specialist areas such as intricate map reading. I am surprised that the medical people who we are told treat hm on a regular basis have not suggested this. As I get older reading is getting harder and you should use whatever aids are available.

Unfortunately Brown does not do the "take advice thing" very well as has been apparentin so many different areas. As a last resort he could always ask his wife or an assistant to write the letter and he could personally sign it, I do not see anything wrong with that.

PS Am not a Brown supporter.

PPS Good article Nick, coincidentally have just read two books about the two events in question. Although they were fiction a lot of historical fact was covered and were both very moving. Too often we gloss over anniversaries with a soundbite or clip from some movie, the learning bit from history is sometimes left at the wayside. For the record the books were "Second Violin" by John Lawton and "Brandenburg" by Henry Porter.

Murdock has trawlled through the archives and come across the smear over Michael Foot's jacket and thought, let's give it another run.

Murdock attacked one of the good men of Parliament then, and is willing to do the same to another. The sad thing is that he can get away with it because the great British public swallow it, without a thought as to why Murdock wishes to have power in so many countries?
Reading some of today's postings suggest that it really wouldn't take much for a newspaper to turn us into a hateful country, willing to believe anything served up to us as fact. How many people have stated they don't like Gordon Brown, and yet have probably never met him, just believed what has been told to them by an Australian/Amercan newspaper proprietor.
The British people or maybe it is just we English have lost our ability to think for ourselves and come to judgements of people by what we actually know of them. We seem to have become mindless slaves to the media. Few take an active role in politics, so have no idea what is required to organise society or the influences that are working away in the background interfering with the process of government.
Has anyone considered how many ex-Etonians are beavering away in Whitehall on behalf of Cameron, a fellow, old boy?

#76 C'mon Fubar they avoid tax. You know they do, hardly patriotic is it?

He's made terrible decisions as chancellor and now prime minister, but let's not let News International take any moral high ground. They deny the public purse as much as they possibly can.

No representation without taxation

"The reason this is a story is because of the widespread sense of doubt about the continued value of British forces fighting and dying in Afghanistan."

Rubbish - the reason this is a 'story' is that the BBC has a clear agenda, which is that it aims to sow doubt about any armed conflict which involves British troops, and also aims to undermine the resolve of the British public.

So now Gordon Brown can't make an honest mistake, everything has to be 'an insult', which leaves people 'horrified' or whatever. I appreciate that losing a son in the conflict is a terrible thing, but the BBC just lap it up when people complain like this.

You only have to have heard Jon Sopel's report on the BBC news last night (Remembrance Sunday) to see the BBC agenda clearly. It was less of a news report and more of an opinion piece. Sopel was quite obviously of the opinion that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan. He couldn't even report on the Remembrance service at the Army's Afghan base without reminding us that another two servicemen had been killed while it was taking place, something that had already been reported by the BBC.

What would Sopel have made of the casualty numbers in WW2? Thank goodness we didn't have these characters around in the 1940's to question every move that the War Cabinet made, or we'd have just given up and let Hitler roll over us.