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.

And it seems that Miss Janes also got the Sun to record her telephone conversation that she had with the PM.

eww

If Mrs Janes has recorded a private conversation between herself and the PM, without the PM's knowledge, and then passed it (sold it?)on to The Sun then IMHO it is she who is disrespecting her son's memory. That's disgusting behaviour. And The Sun is worse for encouraging it. The whole sorry affair leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Mrs Janes is in danger of totally undermining any legitimate points she may have about lack of equipment for soldiers by behaving in this way. It's appalling.

Its a sad story all round. A mother has lost her son. But agree fayrazz it is now leaving a bad taste in my mouth now, having heard she taped the phone conversation now with GB.

I think I mentionned earlier in this thread that it took until the six o clock news for me to realise that it was Janes and not James, and I had heard the story on the radio and tv lots during yesterday. An easy mistake to make. The man has apologised to her. She tapes it with the Suns help. Awful.

even the use of the word 'lost' here... lost tends to suggest accidental... i just can't get my head around the fact that parents and family don't see that if you take a job in a war zone then your chances of dying (while VASTLY reduced compared to previous wars) are high and that the person must take responsibility for that decision. christ knows that the woman is devastated, but i'd propose that she should be furious at herself for letting him join up. being a serving soldier is not a safe job.

I thought it was an unspoken agreement not to score party political points where someone from the military has tragically lost their life?

I don't think the mother is to blame here - she cannot be in a frame of mind to make rational decisions at the moment. The Sun are cunts for exploiting this for cheap political points.
There may well be issues with equipment for the troops - and Gordon Brown must share some responsibility for this. But the root cause is the clusterfuck that is defence procurement. That is mismanaged and consistently trades political expediency over quality and price. Effectivly, our position is that jobs in the defence industry are more important than providing decent equipment. But that's a much harder and more complex story to sell to the public than - 'Look! The funny looking blindo can't spell! What a CUNT.'

This:- www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/eurofighter_tranche_3/ is the kind of shit we should be getting cross about.

This was all just an opportunity to be cynically exploited by the media, IMO. If I were the grieving mother, I'd also feel pretty angry that the surname (an unusual one, but still) had been misspelt - but god knows, I think I'd have other priorities than going to the redtops. And I'm not saying she made that decision, either - I bet The Sun came to her, once they'd heard she was upset about it.

Seems like GB can't do a single thing right. DH and I were discussing this last night - we were both pretty surprised that he writes the letters himself, by hand, in the first place. Not saying that he shouldn't do so - I think it's right and proper - but he has a lot of other stuff to do. I was surprised, given his horrible handwriting, that he didn't get an intern with beautiful calligraphy to do them on his behalf. But then that's the whole point, isn't it? He must be one of the more hard-pressed people in the country, and he's writing these himself, by hand. So what if his handwriting stinks?

I feel very sorry for the mother, losing her son, and I can imagine being upset about the spelling, but I think its a very undignified way of handling it. I think she will look back and regret her choices and feel that she has been used by the media.

My surname is an unusual one that is very like a common one. It gets misspelt all the time, I don't find it at all surprising. Its not someone trying to deliberately offend, its someone making an easy, common mistake.

YANBU. Haven't read whole thread so apologies if someone has already made this point. Andy Coulson - Tories' head of press communications also former Sun reporter and editor of the News of the World. That's all you need to know really isn't it? Sun has recently changed it's political allegience and is out to do all it can to discredit the Labour party and Gordon Brown. SquirrelTrap's point is entirely valid, but that wouldn't be such a good story would it? Mrs Janes is distraught - don't blame her. Andy Coulson and his old colleagues are the villains here.

Good point by oojamaflip

yanbu...i feel sorry for him....

my handwriting is even worse than my typing...

I agree this is a case of a very vulnerable lady being exploited by the Sun for their own political ends. My ds almost joined the army at 16, 5 years ago. It had been his childhood ambition. He had a change of heart (ironically because I lost my husband) and I thank god every day that he did. I think how I could have been that soldier's mother every time there is a death. I also think that loss of life a risk that they sign up to and although there may be failures in leadership in war, war is war and people die.
I do sympathise with Mrs Janes but being goaded by the Sun into expressing her anger in this way is doing nothing to honour and respect her son's memory and I hope she does not come to regret it.

I also feel sorry for Gordon - and think the mother will probably regret recording that conversation in the future.

I also agree with everything Aitch says on this thread.

I would hate for my children to be in the forces as it is a dangerous job. I hated the adverts the used to run about seeing the world and learning a trade as they pointedly omitted the bit about maybe being killed for your country.

I am full of respect for those in the forces but do hope they realised what they signed up for.

There was an incredibly moving programme on r4 a couple of weeks ago where letters were read out of those who'd been killed in service. I didn't realise that those going off to war zones were encouraged to leave letters behind for their families in case they were killed - not sure if its still on iplayer but was an excellent programme.

The Sun are being their usual despicable selves.

if you join the forces there is a fair chance you will get killed.....

if i joined... i would be prepared for that ...

Penth, I agree with your comments about being short of supplies not being a new issue. One of the few keepsakes I have from my father is a letter written to his parents from India during WWII stating how short they wore of basic supplies and could they send him [long list] in the next parcel.

OK so it wasn't helicopters and body armour, but essentials to make life acceptable.

I can understand that she is pissed off that he spelled the name wrong but cut him some slack. Don't get me wrong I am no fan of GB's but I think the fact he personally writes to the families that have lost loved ones in the forces is a good thing.
It's the Sun that have used this woman's grief and anguish to flog it's paper.

I feel so sorry for her loss, but she is being very silly over the letter.

I would like to add that as someone from a ex military family, although not currently as my DB committed suicide shortly after the Falklands - a whole other thread about the woeful state of mental health provision for troops - and my father (retired RAF) has passed away, I am no great fan of GB this situation does elicit my sympathy.

I also have an unusual name it is normal for me to hear it incorrectly pronounced or see it misspelt.

Are there not some legal issues in recording a conversation and then publicly releasing without the consent of both parties?

I'm no fan of the current government, and I think GB has had his moment and should move on.

However, in the interests of fairness, I think he's stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. I think the errors look more to me like handwriting mistakes than spelling ones - with a thick pen, writing in a hurry, it's not difficult to blend/merge/omit letters. Yes, he probably should have checked the names - particularly when it must have been clear he was writing about someone who would have been called Jamie James - worth a "Is this right?" query to an aide, surely?

But recording that phone conversation when he was trying to make amends is shoddy. I totally undersstand that Mrs Janes is raging in her grief at the moment, but the blatant manipulation by the Sun is sickening - more so than Mr Brown's actions. After all, whatever you think of how he's running the country, he's basically a decent man.

This might have been said already; it's a long thread and I'm at work!

If someone, in 5 years time, asks you who Jamie Janes was, what are you going to say? Because unfortunately now, most people will say he's the lad whose mother went to the Sun about the letter. Is that the best way for him to be remembered?

I agree with OP and most posters here. I'm no apologist for Brown but in this case, he can't do right for doing wrong.

I've got a weird surname myself and even people I've known for years get it wrong. I've had my name spelled wrongly on wedding seating plans etc and it just makes me laugh.

This is clearly a case of looking to take offence. Of course, the result of silly stories like this is that life gets that bit more automated and procedural, if any human error is to be jumped on like this.

Sure, Brown could get his staff to write the letter etc, but he'd get it in the neck for that too.

Nick Robinson said on BBC news last night that most people will think that this is about a man with a bad eye, bad handwriting but a good heart. I agree with this, and think the Sun are just doing their usual shit stirring. Neither they nor the greiving mother (greiving all the way to the nearest tabloid, hmmmm) come out of this with any credibility.

Aitch - people join up for a variety of reasons - for my dh and db, the Navy provides a good career structure; employment until 53 (dependant upon rank); a pension; a chance to ply their trades both on and under the water; the opportunity to live abroad for a bit; job changes every 2.5 years on average so they are constantly expanding their skills set; leadership training; vast responsibilities (including for millions of pounds worth of kit); educational opportunities, dh had his degree paid for and both have got their Masters degrees whilst serving; sports/adventurous training and expeds; cameraderie; a social life; teamwork; the chance to work with very specialist equipment; an excellent set of transferable skills when they leave which will make them employable and, they both believe in what they do, and that defending the realm is important.

Against that though are; the interrupted leaves; the leave they can't take as there is not enough time; the years when you are at sea for about 80% of the time; no trade union; no minimum wage; no overtime; 20 hour days for weeks on end; nicking kit from another vessel to make sure yours can go to sea on time; checking under your car in the morning for bombs; being sent on deployment/to sea with very little notice (literally hours) that it was coming; the inability to make any sort of plans as whilst the diary may look clear it probably won't be in a week; disruption to your kid's education; disruption to your wife's career; and now, promotion is increasingly hard to come by as the Navy shrinks. Also, loss of family time, and in some cases the break up of their marriages. Weekending can be wearing as well after 4 or so years.

It's a trade off at times; job security (dh has been in for 30 years) and a variety of challenges versus getting killed.

Before the troops deploy to Afghanisatn, they have to leave wills, a photo for the press in case they are killed, their funeral wishes, and next of kin details. They may leave a final letter, I don't know, I'll ask db this weekend before he goes out there for 6 months. It is NOT just the Army there, the RN and the RAF are there as well.

Penth, this might answer your question about why we are spending on the RN. When the Marines are there (as they are part of the RN), and the medics etc, the RN provides 50% of the forces in Afghanistan. Not bad, for (imo) the most underfunded of the Services. The other reason is that the UK is an island and therefore has a coastline. You need ships and submarines to defend that.