to think that Gordon Brown was writing with good intentions to the mother of the dead soldier.......does handwriting really matter??

[SquirrelTrap]

I think it is all rather unfair.

I would prefer a scrawled personally written letter than a spell-checked standard Word document letter? I think it is all rather nasty.

linkylink, hf.

that's poor, no doubt. his people should have been all over that, herbie. but as for all this handwriting crap from the sun, it's bogus.

Would you not say that Janes is quite an usual name though Herbie? Whereas James is a pretty common name. I think I may make the same mistake TBH and I have 20/20 vision

Jamie Janes IS a bit of a tongue-twister

I actually just typed it wrong TWICE!

his name was james janes? how unusual. this surely can't be the first time someone's got that wrong? (actually an army type i knew was olly oliver, actual first name alex, so jamie james not so unlikely as a nickname).

ah yes, no self interest from cowell and assorted media at all... [tories]

Jamie Janes I believe

I think it's physically impossible to write correctly, I keep trying to type it and it comes out wrong

I actually wonder whether it was actually a member of his staff that typed the name wrong. When I was a PA that was the kind of mistake I made all the time, ahem, I saw that a lot. The fact that he read out the name wrong in the Commons as well reinforces this possibility.

But even if not, I think give the guy a break on the basis that
a) he is almost blind
b) Janes and James are VERY similar, and James is by far the more common name.
c) He obviously didn't think, 'Oh, I know what would be a brilliant idea - I will try to OFFEND the mother of a dead soldier, that will make me look like a moron and give the opposition a whole pile of shit to fling at me at the same time. Result.' It was a mistake and he's said sorry.

i don't understand, sorry. janes is not a common name. more so in combination with james as the forename.

I agree there is little provision for mental rehabilitation on their return home (my next door neighbour was in the Falklands and clearly has PSTD but has never been offered any care) but there is also a fallacy that there is a magical cure to the trauma that people suffer in conflict. Psychology/psychiatry simply don't have the answers...........so the govt cannot pour money into any old scheme because it is tax payers money.

I would be more sceptical that physical needs are not currently met.

OP - YANBU. This is ugly media spin. Totally distasteful.

What government hasn't "disrespected" the armed forces. My dad was in the Army for 40 in one capacity or another. There never was some halcyon day when the government in power treated the forces the way they would like to be treated.

E.g. Does anyone remember almalgamation and all the associated crap?

Fact is, if you're in the forces, and there's a threat to your life, there's no amount of rhetoric or political spin that's going to make up for that. No politician is going to be sincere enough to deliver that kind of message, particularly now when there are virtually no ex-servicemen in political power (as once there were).

People in the forces know what they're signing up for; and it's not their place - my dad has always said - to question the role they're required to fill.

We have an uneasy relationship with our forces, and always have, whatever anyone would like to think.

exactly, penth.

Thing is, herbie, underfunding is a problem for many public services, of which the forces are one (surely we also feel outrage at unnecessary deaths in hospitals, etc.).

It feels particularly cruel now because of the loss of life associated with, for instance, inadequate or non-existent equipment.

But but but... it's not just a question of the government pouring more money into it: it's about chains of supply, etc. You can't magic up aircraft, etc., out of nowhere. It's so enormously more complicated than: "send more helicopters!"

And besides, there is also the long-standing and deep-rooted rivalry between the forces over funding. As an army brat, I've always wondered why we spend so much money on the navy these days...

if wishes were horses, herbie. pudsey bear shouldn't exist either, the NHS and govt should be able to provide for breadline and sick children. of course the thing with those children is that they didn't sign up for their lives.

Someone earlier said that the US treats its forces better... Well, yes and no, frankly.

We were posted in the US 20 years ago, and there will still plenty of people about who were only just beginning to put out bumper stickers saying "Vietnam Vet & Proud of it", etc.

The US has had a pretty complex relationship with its forces too.

There are, of course, deep veins - particularly in the Mid-West - of support for the military, but it is not a universal phenomenon, as far as I ever could see.

Thing is, the US "does" patriotism better than we do, and has done for half a century at least. Insofar as the forces are associated with patriotism, it's unsurprising that the feeling should be that soldiers are more appreciated. How this is borne out in reality is another matter.

he should have got it right. he didn't, and so he apologised. should mrs janes have taken the letter to the press?

Yes, the forces are overstretched. But that's not down to a government "disrespecting" them.

It's due to a host of global and political factors, many of which are the consequence of being a post-imperial power.

It's not that my dad didn't privately question the things he had to do (e.g. Northern Ireland). But he knew that when he signed up, he signed away his right to complain, IYSWIM.

And I disagree with the idea that the forces are uniquely overstretched now.

I bet if you read any letter home from a soldier at some point over the past century, you'd see complaints about lack of equipment, etc. God, it's practically a given of most WW1 and WW2 correspondence. War puts the forces under pressure.

And, quite frankly, the country is pouring a huge amount of money into the war in Afghanistan. It's sadly just never going to be enough.

I haven't read the whole thread but it is a prime example of the lack of understanding about visual impairment.

I have two children with visual impairment whose handwriting is often described as untidy but when you can't see properly it is hard to copy things accurately all the time and letter spacing etc can be a problem.

I agree with Ineedacleaner a few pages back - the Ns and Ms look similar enough, from what I've seen, to be read as one another, so I'm not convinced that was actually a mistake at all.

However, I can also believe that, given the serviceman's name - Jamie Janes - he may have accidentally got the N and M confused when reaching the surname. As someone has said, with a name like this it must happen a lot. And if that's what happened, it's entirely possible that he could read it through and not notice because the eye will show you what it expects to see half the time in that situation.

All that aside, even assuming it was an error, I am with the OP and many other posters here in feeling that this has been deliberately blown up into a supposed huge 'insult', in a way that does no credit to Mrs Janes (though I am sorry for her loss of her son, I don't think this way of handling it will do her any good in the long run) or to the Sun, and the rest of the media who have picked up the story and run with it. It also makes me feel sorry for GB - I'm not much in sympathy with him at the moment, but he could not have done right for doing wrong on this issue. A typed letter would have been scorned by his critics as impersonal and done by a lackey. Personally I would rather my Prime Minister had other skills than good handwriting (and agan, the question of whether GB has those is another matter and not relevant here).

I don't see how any letter could compensate Mrs Janes for her son's death, but the one sent was a genuine attempt to give comfort and show respect. I also wonder whether Mrs Janes, or the Sun writers involved, can honestly say they have never made a mistake or got wrong an aspect of something they were doing for all the right reasons - or, come to that, whether they all hae perfect handwriting and always get people's names right.

I am not from a military family but I strongly believe in supporting our servicepeople; however, I think in this case that banner is being badly misused to veil cheap political point scoring.