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.

Does it not make you wonder if the Sun are actually showing their support for Labour? They could have hardly made GB seem more compassionate and dignified, could they?

I don't think when men and women join the forces they actully believe that they are going to be blown up. Of course they don't, it's human nature to think that it's going to happen to someone else.
I do think it's unforgivable that he spelt the gdsm's name wrong the letter should have been proof read. But I do think it is wrong that the Sun published. I know for a fact that when a soldier is killed that their familiy are almost stalked by the papers.
I don't agree with the statments saying that the lads and the famillies should expectthat they are going to die. Yes you worry and every unexpected knock at the door or phone call makes you heart call but you would never really think it's going to be you husband, son, father, wife, daughter or mother.

In answer to Op as have not yet read thread.I would prefer that my son had not been put in such a position in the first place.A letter from Gordon Brown would be the last thing I would want to receive.Very easy to write and he can't even get it correct!

haven't read whole thread so apols if this has been done.
someone linked to this on CiF

Awful that the young man died.
Good on Gordon Brown for personally writing letters for all the troops killed (has any PM done this before).
I looked at the letter and wasn't sure whether he had misspelled or not but his handwriting is poor.
Disgusting of the Sun to use it as part of their new anti-Labour campaign and to take advantage of the grief of the mother.
Great link Jooseyfruit!

YANBU. A very disheartening episode. I don't think it's 'unforgiveable' to spell the name wrong - I think it's a big mistake, and GB has apologised. I do think it's unforgiveable and vile to exploit a parent' s grief. I also think it's disrespectful to her son's dignity and memory for this woman to have allowed a national newspaper to publish a condolence letter, and then taped a call of apology. A truly awful response to a very sad situation.

Anyway, I think the Sun as come out of this looking like loons. Very bad call on their part. The most anti-GB person cannot forget that he has buried a child himself, and shown great dignity regarding that.

Agree.

It's bullying all round.

Lots of speculation now that the Sun will have to back down - it's getting very little support on this even from people who would usually fall into line (eg the comments on its own website).

"you would never really think it's going to be you husband, son, father, wife, daughter or mother."

and the vast majority are correct, of course, but that doesn't mean that you're not all in complete denial about the truth. bottom line, if you're in a war, somebody's son is dying, you only have to hope that he's not yours and forget about the devastated mothers on the opposing side.

re people wanting to kill, dittany, did you hear that book by an army officer on r4 recently? they really were absolutely exhilirated to get the news that they were going to war, according to him.

personally i thought he was quite a decent chap completely brainwashed by the organisation. and of course the military must occupy their hearts, minds and souls because whatever else they are selling the troops, they're sending them off to kill or be killed.

GB couldn't win - if the letter was typed it would be impersonal, if he hired extra staff to proofread his letters he'd be wasting taxpayers' money (and central Govt workers aren't eligible for Access to Work - MPs who need support have to apply to the Parliament expenses fund).
No letter = heartless, spending lots of time on letter = not concentrating on running the country.

I've got a fair amount of respect for the guy just for not running away from the job when the credit crunch hit and it became clear the entire GDP of the UK wouldn't be enough to sort out Afghanistan.

On the other side? As in the Taliban? It depends yes I have sympathy for the actual Afghan people who are made to fight and are normally farmers but no I don't have sympathy for the hardliners or the ones from other countries.
I hate the fact the innocent civilians die, I hate the fact that are soldiers die. It's not denial, how can it be when I have friends whose husbands have been killed or my dh knows lads that have died.
It's not a black and white situation. No doubt lads do feel a certain amount of exhileration at the news they are being deployed, it doesn't make them all psychopaths. From the year dot young men have been excited aboout the image of war the reality soon wears off. But they stay in the army,and do their second, third and fourth tour, some because they have no choice (lack of good paying jobs that they could do in civvi street) and some because they actually love the army. (and before there is a predictible reply of 'what they love killing' its not that at all.)

"you would never really think it's going to be you husband, son, father, wife, daughter or mother" is practically the dictionary definition of denial, ferret.

particularly in the last decade or so there have been plenty of jobs on civvy street, so i do think there is something else going on, like i say i think there is a certian amount of brainwashing goes on. brainwashing probably isn't even the right word, re-programming and ultra-bonding maybe, stemming from shared training and living experiences, even for the wives and families? you do all have to buy into this noble hero thing. and i'm sure the wife of mr taliban finds your husband as abhorrent as you find him. didn't a lot of this start when the US troops stayed on Saudi land, drinking and carousing and otherwise disrespecting Allah? wasn't that what got bin laden all steamed up in the first place and gave Bush et al the opportunity to go settle some Middle East scores?

War is wrong in general. The wars we have these days are very wrong for they are all about protecting our oil interests. At least the 2nd World War was about human rights.
People sign up to the army in the knowledge (or at least they should do) that they are out there to kill people who get in the way of their leaders' plans.
I wonder (sure I will be corrected, but haven't had time to read the whole thread)how many people was this mother's son responsible for killing, directly or indirectly, in his career.

It really makes me sick. This 'war' is indefensible and the whole mispelt name thing has been blown out of proportion in order to make killers seem like victims.

Not in my name. Or, as my 9yr old daughter and niece wrote on their banners in the march to stop the attack on Iraq, 'War Is Just A Load Of Greedy Men'.

What planet are you on Aitch?

I bet people killed in car crashes never think it's going to be them either, nor do their families. Aren't we all in denial every time we step into a car? We HOPE in the Forces that it's not going to be our family members killed, but we are all too aware that it might be. You cannot however live your life like that, so we get on with it when they are away. We all plan for the worst and hope for the best.

As for 'brainwashing probably isn't even the right word, re-programming and ultra-bonding maybe, stemming from shared training and living experiences, even for the wives and families? you do all have to buy into this noble hero thing.' Big fat hairy swingy bollocks is all I can say to that. As far as I know, I have not been brainwashed, had to go on ultra-bonding (ugh, it might involve physical activity) or re-programming sessions. My ds certainly hasn't. I married a man who does a specific job, which I am aware might kill him. I am also aware that that entailed the possibility of him killing others. For much of his career, the Cold War was the one being fought, and so the possibility of killing someone in his particular specialisation was remote, although his safety when away was a constant worry.

The Army Officer on Radio 4 probably was excited at being deployed because he could put his training into practise and exercise his professional skills. At the same time, he would have been apprehensive and scared and wanting to get on with the job in hand.

As for the Civvy street jobs - not at the level of pay and job security that can be commanded in the Forces. The job security is important, especially as the salary is guaranteed by HMG.

Truly - that 'not in my name' bleat always reminds me of Pontius Pilate washing his hands. If fighting in Afghanistan prevents the Taleban from getting stronger in Pakistan and gaining control of the nuclear weapons there, then good. That would really mean that the shit would hit the fan if that happened. If you are a tax payer then your comment about indirectly killing can be applied to you, as it's your taxes that fund the Armed Forces, buys the munitions, the food, the uniforms, the equipment. If you voted Labour, then this is in your name, as you gave Blair and then Brown the mandate to send and keep the troops there.

But Scary, the Tories supported the war too.

Didn't say they didn't. I think we have to be there too, as the consequences and implications of not being there are huge.

I also think people need to get away from the UK/US thing here as well. It's a NATO operation, with troops being supplied from several NATO nations, and some non NATO ones like the Aussies. It's the Brits, the Canadians, the US, the Danes and the Aussies who are doing the bulk of the fighting in Helmand, but the rest are there too.

It'll be interesting to see what people say when the Balkans kicks off again as is looking increasingly likely. I expect it will be allowable for our troops to be there.