Brown letter day
by Alan Tyers
The ignoble sport of bear-baiting is alive and well: Gordon Brown has lurched into yet another crisis and his enemies at The Sun are getting stuck in.
The PM hand-wrote a letter to Jacqui Janes offering his condolences for the death in Afghanistan of her Grenadier Guardsman son, Jamie.
Brown managed to spell her name incorrectly, and made several other spelling (or handwriting) mistakes in the letter. Then - cringe, cringe - he phoned her up to say sorry, she recorded the conversation and handed it to The Sun. Manna from heaven to the Tory-backing boys in Wapping.
Personally, I think it’s a low blow: he wrote to her and phoned her personally and privately. I couldn’t argue that it’s not a matter of public interest, but it still seems a bit mean to serve him up to the unlovely red-top attack dogs.
Still, it certainly reveals a lot about the Prime Minister and his current state of mind. A lack of attention to detail, the inability to admit a mistake - “I think I was trying to say Janes, as your right name” - a total failure to communicate.
A more gifted politician and manipulator than Brown - Tony Blair, say, or Bill Clinton - would have played the card that he too has lost a child; or maybe even alluded to his disability and failing eyesight. It’s arguably to Brown’s credit that he didn’t. About all you can say is that he shouldn’t have written the letter if he can’t write her name correctly. It seems a modest amount to ask from the leader of the country.
Instead of grovelling, Brown tried to debate her on issues that she obviously knows a fair bit about, but is never going to bend on. That her son died because of underfunding is fixed 100% in her mind.
It’s not an argument he could ever win, and even if he could - who wants to defeat a grieving mother with stats and policy detail?


Katie - what were those countries that were not 'pulling their weight' in Afghanistan?
Still can'come up with an answer?
Back up your ignorance with facts.
Put The Sun down, stub out your fag, get off the sofa and go and do some research. Then come back with an answer.
Posted by: invicta | 17 November 2009 at 12:10
invicta - just a nasty, snobbish, racist, horrible piece of work
Posted by: katie | 16 November 2009 at 14:54
And think how much more money I earn than an 'immigation officer'.
What does an 'immigration officer' i.e a thicko who sits and looks at passports all day, earn?
20K?
25K?
Pathetic.
Think of all those educated Asian doctors who earn thrice that amount every 10 months.
Or those African footballers who earn that in a week!
Or the Asian shop owner who makes double that (at least) from all the thickos buying The Sun and a pack of fags every day.
Or the East European plumber who earns a grand a week.
You must wish you were educated and had bothered to engage and that you could move beyond your racist myopia.
Posted by: Invicta | 13 November 2009 at 14:16
invicta is probably a lawyer working for immigrants , and getting paid by the legal aid board !!
Posted by: disenchanted immigration officer | 13 November 2009 at 13:23
Yes it looks like "invicta" is the pen name for "bin liner"
Posted by: bin liner by any other name | 12 November 2009 at 17:46
Is "invicta" the pen name of "bin liner"?????
Posted by: So the bin liner is a blogger | 12 November 2009 at 17:43
Wow - a barrage of cliches have been unleashed. (you must have read The Sun AND The Mail today. Did it take you all day?)
So all our money is being sent to Pakistan to school Pakistani children so that despots can hide the money in their bank accounts and the arms dealers can make huge profits whilst bankers pay themselves bonuses.
Wow.
Posted by: invicta | 12 November 2009 at 16:11
Here we go - all the thickos are blaming Islam for their own bleak, ignorant lives.
Does it not occur to you that corner shops are not the perogative of Muslims and that more churches are turned into pubs and flats than mosques?
And how can a mosque be heathen? (Jeez are you really that thick?)
There is nothing more pitiful than those who make racist generalisations.
Posted by: Invicta | 12 November 2009 at 16:02
There is a shortage of funds because we are giving away hundreds of millions of pounds to places like pakistan for schooling whilst giving next to nothing for our own children and schools.
Most of the hundreds of millions will go into despots bank accounts to be invested in more wars and make huge arms profits and big bonuses for bankers yet again.
Posted by: Foreign aid is a disgrace | 12 November 2009 at 16:02
Name the countries that are in Afghanistan and are not 'soldiering'.
Back up your ignorance with facts. It's that simple.
Posted by: Jane | 12 November 2009 at 15:53
A few points regarding the post below.
Gordon Brown's child is too young to serve in the army.
Getting oneself killed in Afghanistan does not necessarily make one 'brave'.
'He just doesnt care less'(sic)
An interesting double negative.
(but we think we know what you mean)
Posted by: invicta | 12 November 2009 at 15:45
My son served 6 months in afghanistan this year and thank god came back safe, but on sunday watching the rememberance parade i was deeply shocked and outraged to see Gordon Brown not bowing his head after placing his poppies. He never even showed any respect and also in the commons when he read out the names of the brave men killed. He just doesnt care less. Maybe they should send his son out there and see how it feels.
Posted by: ann marriott | 12 November 2009 at 13:47
I think that 'incapability Brown' is a right twit (and his government) but even I don't think that what he's had to put up with concerning his attempt at WRITING a condolence letter is right or fair. Just another thought....isn't it illegal to record a telephone conversation without the other person being made aware of it beforehand?
Posted by: Raymond | 12 November 2009 at 10:57
To those complaining about the dead soldier's mother, DON't, unless you have lost someone in a place far from home and without really understanding why he/she was killed. The boy bled to death from lack of a helicopter, try explaining that to a grieving wife or mother, there's no sense to it. When you get old, you get used to the finality of death, when your young, it is unbelievable that someone has gone forever. They say time is a great healer, it isn't.
Posted by: Brian Wylie | 12 November 2009 at 09:02
During WW2, no matter what age you were, you lived with death at your elbow. As dramatic as that sounds, it was true. Many of us with relatives nad friends away fighting daily awaited the knock of the "telegram lad" bearing the news from the War Office that someone was dead, wounded or missing. The mourning was no different from what it is today but at least almost everyone knew what the war was about and the consequences of losing. Strangely, even during the darkest times, almost no one thought we could lose. Today almost everyone you talk to doesn't think we can win in Afghanistan and pours derision on the heads of government. Gordon Brown, no doubt with the best of intentions wrote to a woman who had just lost her son and compounded this massive error by telephoning her. His lack of knowledge about her loss and it's effects is staggering and must throw doubts on his overall competence. People are quite used to violent death but it is mostly on TV, believe me when it is real and in the family it is very personal and devastating you don't want strangers condolences especially when they are engaged in getting more people killed. Brown should have left well alone. If he continues in this vein, he had better improve his writing as he has got a lot of letters to write in the future. There is no end to Afghanistan and already Obhama is being councelled to get out. Afghanistan will not change and the sooner the better the government combats terrorism at home we will all be safer. WE lost many of our freedoms in WW2 to combat the enemy. It was all worth it. Now they use anti-terrorism laws to check your bins. There is something wrong somewhere.
Posted by: Brian Wylie | 12 November 2009 at 08:52
One major theme runs through these tragedies and that is the shortage of funds forcing delays in all sorts of capital funding.....One major area where our Government agencies are failing to succeed is the collection of fixed penalties,court awarded damages and fines...Massive waste of effort is made by all agencies to collect this cash as well as all the paperwork and cross agency checking to catch and force miscreants into paying...a huge waste of manpower (unless
we need all these jobsworths & quangoes to employ our swathes of unemployed ??
If Courts are imposing these penalties/fines then they should be empowere to collect the cash there & then Or detain the miscreant in the Court cells until his/her family/friends come up with the funds.
Another huge expenditure is the costs to the NHS for treating and admitting our drunk/disorderly boozers every day of the week...There should be a flat charge of £100=per admission for "self-inflicted" drunks/injured and the legal power to administer such penalty.Patients/pals will be asked to sign the admissions charge/ proforma in
agreement for their fees.
A tough tightening up might even deter miscreants of all
types & raise public funds.
The Courts must take more responsibility in successfully collecting the fines,etc they impose.
Posted by: Jameson | 12 November 2009 at 01:34
Pundits on all sides talk about winning or failing to
succeed in Afghanistan but this is an Insurgency/guerilla
war increasing with intensity.
The basic problem is "foreign
non-believers" fighting on Muslim lands. This is a simple & compelling message for the Taliban to steadily increase their fighting numbers and support in the country.....Guerillas have nothing to lose and newly built infrastructure easy to destroy....This War is a No-Brainer & should be fought with friendly Muslim forces such as Pakistan,Bangladesh &
Indonesia who all have Democracies of sorts & similar cultures...They also understand the dangers posed by many of their Madrassars & fundamentalist clerics !
Posted by: j.loups | 12 November 2009 at 00:50
The question, Invicta, is more “what is any invading military force actually achieving in Afghanistan”? One dodgy regime has been replaced by another dodgy corrupt “democratic” government. Women are equally repressed. Ten times more heroin is now
flooding out, to supply drug addicts. Thousands of primarily US & UK soldiers are injured and maimed, hundreds have been killed, The Taliban, have learned how to better manufacture and place mines (IED’s) to more lethal effect. Afghan wedding parties have been blown to smithereens by high explosive. The excuses by western governments for invading have been changed continually. Are not all the invading countries actions ultimately “useless” or worse!
Posted by: Peter Angry | 11 November 2009 at 17:31
Invicta, you are obviously a bully with a nasty streak to pick on Katie. I’m sure she’s quite capable of fighting her own corner and she’ll answer if she wants to.
Posted by: Jane Simmonds | 11 November 2009 at 17:28
Katie refers to "right wing tripe". I used the words "Right Wing Spiel" "Tripe" is her own words. Anyone who thinks Cameron is a centrist has gotta be kidding. The conservatives are as far away from Centrist polices as Labour are from socialism. Ted Heath and MacMillan are more to the left than New Labour. 30 Years ago we may have had "socialism" and "big government" but not now. The conservative period of office 1951 - 1964 was dubbed as 13 years of "tory socialism" because the conservatives did not undo any of the social or economic policies of the postwar Labour Government. The current labour administration will be probably dubbed as 13 years of "labour toryism" Labour has not repealed ANY of the trade union laws which Thatcher created and only tiny proportions of new employment laws (such as anti work place bullying and upgrading of statutory holiday pay) have been created. They have continued with further privatisations such as the sales of government assets, policies which Mrs T would be proud of. The balance of power is totally in favour of the employer. The public sector employee is no more secure than the private sector employee. Staff in the public sector are mostly employed on fixed term contracts or agencies. The last conservative government was a keen supporter of agencies and Labour have been just as keen to continue with them. Mrs T said she would wipe socialism of the face of the earth - and she did! She also said that there would be no more jobs for life and since Thatcher there has not been. Mrs Thatcher created a benefit dependant culture in the UK - a legacy which has remained. Before Thatcher there was no such thing as a benefit culture in Britain.
He is trying to be the Tory's Tony Blair, therefore earning himself the reputation of a centrist. Do you honestly think Cameron is going to be advocate protectionism, as opposed to free market forces strengthen trade union power and repeal Thatcher legislation so that the balance of power on the work place is more equal? Do you think a Conservative government is going to pull out the war on its own accord? Do you think he will continue with the National Minimum wage?
Brown has no charisma and that will be his undoing. Cameron has charisma (albeit borrowed from Blair) but he has no substance and that will be his undoing.
Posted by: Peter Wain | 11 November 2009 at 16:49
We cannot win this war - no invading army has ever managed to occupy Afghanistan, all we can do is save our soldiers lives by bringing them home alive from this pointless war and not in coffins which is the present case !
Posted by: Stirl | 11 November 2009 at 15:55
Katie - your problem is that you equate hating Gordon Brown and serving in the army as love for one's country.
Hating the current democratically elected government does not make you any more a 'patriot' than those who love the current democratically elected government.
There will be an election next and then those who can be bothered to get up from watching Sky Sports or from reading (lips moving, mouth slightly open) The Sun can have a say. Most, of course won't bother to vote, but then will continue to winge for the next umpteen years - usually about immigration.
Also, Soldiers are civil servants and chose to join the army. They were also, presumably, aware of the job description (those that could read)So get on with it.
And . . . . which 'useless' contries are not doing what you think they should in Afghanistan?
Posted by: invicta | 11 November 2009 at 15:33
Katie - you still haven't answered the question. (which 'useless' countries are not pulling their weight in Afghanistan) The reason for not answering the question?
Like all ignorant people you make sweeping generalisations for which you have no evidence.
Which countries are not doing what you think they should in Afhganistan?
the answer is . . .?
Posted by: Invicta | 11 November 2009 at 14:50
that is it in a nutshell brian !!
Posted by: wat tyler | 11 November 2009 at 14:34
Does it strike anyone that Afghanistan does not want change? They have been the same for thousands of years and still live in the 12th Century politically and socially. western politicians appear to believe that our type of government and politics will suit the country. Will they?Militarily, the Taliban will keep fighting unless they kill them all. The original excuse for being there was the heroin trade, now it is terrorism when the real seat of terrorisim appears to be PAkistan. I fear the West has a tiger by the tail. i did my army service un the 1950's ,one thing I didn't bargain for, having lived through WW2 and countless other smaller conflicts, is that as I pass my 73rd birthday, we would still be carving the names of our dead young men on war memorials and talking blithly about "victory"
Posted by: Brian Wylie | 11 November 2009 at 14:16
Don’t you think you’re all a little hard on the bereaved mother Mrs Janes. Her son bled to death waiting for a medivac helicopter; it’s no secret, for 8 years, and in vain, the military have been requesting replacements for the existing cannibalized and battle weary helicopters in Afghanistan. What she is really saying is “do something about it”, don’t write frankly useless letters after the event, however well meant!
Posted by: Peter Angry | 11 November 2009 at 12:13
The real issue is not Brown’s spelling mistakes, his total lack of the slightest care taken to ensure the bereaved mother’s name was accurate and then to phone and argue with her.
Any letter from a prime minister wether sincere or just a political sop, won’t bring him back from the dead and clearly hasn’t aided the mother.
For the prime minister as political head of the armed forces to show real “care” would be to ensure her son wasn’t killed in the first place by providing sufficient transport and medivac helicopters etc to avoid roadside IEDs and be continually exposed to ambush.
What on earth is he not spending his time and focus on the strategic conduct of an armed conflict where British forces are dying almost daily and leave the letters of condolences to their officers.
Posted by: Peter Angry | 11 November 2009 at 11:04
I FEEL SO VERY SORRY FOR MRS JAMES. INSTEAD OF MOURNING THE DEATH OF HER SON SHE'S SO FOCUSSED ON TELLING THE WORLD ABOUT THE LETTER+PHONE CALL FROM GORDON BROWN.SORRY BUT IF MY SON HAD BEEN KILLED THAT WOULD BE THE LAST THING ON MY MIND FORGET TRYING TO GET ONE OVER ON GORDON BROWN THINK OF THE GREAT LOSS OF YOUR SON. NEWS DIES MRS JAMES THE LOSS OF YOUR SON GOES ON FOREVER
Posted by: LIZ HEGGS | 11 November 2009 at 10:54
further to that winston ..why should brown send a letter to this one brave soldiers family?????
he, along with the rest of this bunch of deceitful politicians would have gained far MORE respect had they the decency to attend the repatriation of the fallen ..... not leave it to a town full of those WITH NATIONAL PRIDE for the fallen !!!
Posted by: wat tyler | 11 November 2009 at 07:58
actually caz cameron will be no better than what new labour ..... by their stealth and deception.... have ensured that future governments will be !!
firstly....... brown led this country into an illegal war and ... as history WILL show.... he who sows the wind should not be suprised at the whirlwind that ensues !!
therefore he ... and he alone ... is responsible for what is happeneing ... not only to the citizens of this once great country ........ but to himself !!!
the proverb heat and kitchen come to mind ...........
Posted by: winston churchill | 11 November 2009 at 07:46
The people of THIS country do pull together Caz , its the corrupt bar stewards and cohorts who are purposely destroying Britannia so they have total control over us who are doing us harm .
Succesive tory and labour governments have ripped the nation apart , not by mis-management , but by a deceiptful underhanded intentional betrayal of our rights and liberties , all for their lust for the new world order .
You probably can,t see it yet , but you will , eventually .
Posted by: Bob | 10 November 2009 at 23:19
I guess this had to happen as everything Gordon Brown puts his handiwork into seems to turn to dust...Gold Reserves,Pension Funds,Industries,Massive Debts and finally our Economy
& fair Immigration.
HOWEVER,on this aspect of
his decency in writing to the Bereaved families, despite a huge amount of work & responsibilities, he did not deserve such a reaction...such
personalised letters are extremely difficult to write & are a sure sign he meant the very best....By taping Mr Brown`s phone call a great deal of sympathy for the family has been lost...
Posted by: j.loups | 10 November 2009 at 23:11
Well winston churchill, if you would prefer as no doubt you do David Cameron who has the personality of a baboom, the problems this country have had have been worldwide, at least Gordon Brown has the nerve to take all thrown at him no matter what his disabilities. Why can't this country pull together instead of throwing knives at the easiest prople in the firing line and instead of writing tripe if you are so insence do something about it !!
Posted by: caz | 10 November 2009 at 22:58
I find the whole thing totally innappropriate. Any issue relating to a hand written letter of condolence concerning the tragic death of a British soldier should have remained a private issue to be adressed between the family of the deceased and the PM.
The fact that it has been plastered all over the media in this manner totally degrades the death of one of Britains finest as well as taking the emphasis away from this tragic situation.
Any media that cashes in on such circumstances while it perhaps hides behind a total facade of false compassion ought to be deeply ashamed.
It is always exceptionally sad to hear about the loss of any life through conflict. Support the troops, dont capitalise on tragedy, Educate the public through responsible reporting, dont use tragic circumstances to get at the PM. I dont agree with Brown's politics or his position, but what he took the time to do, spelling aside, was, I hope, the act of neither a politician or a prime minister but that of a relatively decent man.
Posted by: Astonished | 10 November 2009 at 21:32
I am sure the whole nation feel for this mother who has lost her beloved son - but to turn it into a stick to beat the Prime Minster with is in very poor taste - yes she is filled with anger but it must also be remembered that our soldiers do sign on of there own free will - it is time for the press to leave this poor woman alone to try to put her life into some sort of order - let us all hope we will see our troops back home in the near future.
Posted by: Mary | 10 November 2009 at 20:58
never been a fan of GORDON BROWN but he doesnt deserve this he must be the only leader of any country that does this, hope the mother is not making money out of this cos that would be a real disgrace.
Posted by: ann | 10 November 2009 at 20:55
Now how I did I guess that Katie would be once again giving her right wing spiel? First of all Gordon Brown is the very first Prime Minister in British History to write letters of condolences to the bereaved. This is a fact. Old Tory propaganda used to be that if Labour were in government then they would never support war. That myth has soon been dispelled. Under this Labour Government we have fought more wars than under than the Tories who incidentally have backed the governments stance all the way. When I was in the USA a few years ago, Americans were telling me that they were so proud that we the British had backed the Americans with the war. No other nation has gotten involved. Every American I met could not speak highly enough of Tony Blair. I do not see how Tony Blair or Gordon Brown has ruined the nation. Under Blair, Britain has enjoyed the longest period of economic growth on record. Government. For the first 10 years of labour rule government borrowing has remained far lower than 1997 and we have actually paid of our to the United States. In 2007 Government borrowing as risen sharply, due to the global credit crisis. Gordon Brown as saved us from disaster by injecting government stimulus into the economy and part (and temporary) Nationalisation of the banks and the cars for cash scheme. These policies have been adopted in the United States, Japan and Germany. True we have high debt but the GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS has been responsible for that. There are how ever 33 other countries which have higher debt than the UK. Britain's debt is 52% GPD USA 60%, Germany 64% and Japan 172%. As regards "big government" Cameron is talking nonsense. 30 years ago we may have had big government but not now. There are no nationalised industries and since coming to power labour has implemented more privatisations. Currently they are in the process of selling more government assets Policies which Mrs T would be proud of. The existing public sector we have today is just as tough and brutal as the private sector. Colleges and schools are nothing effectively public businesses. All new public sector staff are employed on fixed term contracts. Budgets are tightly controlled. I know because I have worked in the public public sector. The government has created a record number of apprenticeships which have been excellent for Britain. The last conservative government abolished apprenticeships which meant that UK suffered a chronic skills shortage. Cameron said he is going to make more cuts in defence if he gets in. The last Conservative government cut back our armed forces considerably. I do agree with you on one comment you have suggested. That if other nations lent a helping hand we would win.
Posted by: Peter Wain | 10 November 2009 at 20:53
I originally had all the sympathy in the world for Mrs Janes - the loss of her dear son is no less than tragic. However, for a private conversation to her from the Prime Minister, of no matter what persuasion, to be secretly recorded simply beggars belief and largely dissipates any sympathy felt for the family. So far as The Sun is concerned, well what can you say about Murdoch's gutter press except, perhaps, that it now supports David Cameron and will sink to any depth in its efforts to belittle the Prime Minister. And has the law been broken here ???
Posted by: Johnty, Newcastle | 10 November 2009 at 20:49
I'm appalled that a newspaper can utilise Mrs Janes distress in its own battle to prove its power in the UK.
That her grief has been so trivialised in order to make Gordon Brown look bad is unworthy of the free press. Ridicule him if you want but do not use a man's death to score points.
Posted by: Justine M. Robinson | 10 November 2009 at 19:54
Katie - Which 'useless' countries are not helping to resolve the situation in Afghanistan?
Posted by: Invicta | 10 November 2009 at 19:50
Yes I agree with previous comments that at least Gordon Brown had the decency to write a note personally to offer condolonces, rather than having his secretary do multiple letters.
Obviously he is an educated man who would NOT write a letter containing 25 spelling mistakes! I think that is more likely that his handwriting is illegible, like that of a doctor's.
Obviously it is incredibly sad for the loss of lives of these young soldiers, but I don't think Goedon Brown intentionally wished to cause any pain. I would think that the opposite is far more likely.
Posted by: jane | 10 November 2009 at 18:23
At least Gordon Brown had the sense of decency and goodness of heart and mind to even put pen to paper to send an honest message of condolence to the family of someone who died for this country.
He does not deserve what this woman has done even though she is heartbroken over her lose and she must hate the wasters who killed her son.
Everyone who joins the armed forces of any country knows that they will have to do what he had to do and lay down his life for us all.
How many politicians in any country in this world would even bother to put their thoughts on paper and offer respect and thanks for the great loss this family has had.??
I think it STINKS what the family has done and ALL the media should all be ashamed at publishing what should never have been recorded.
It should be illegal to record ANY telephone conversation without all parties consent and regardless of why this was done there should be consequences.
Posted by: What a nasty response to an honest man | 10 November 2009 at 17:46
It is a disgrace that sections of the media routinely try to make political mileage from the deaths of British troops.
That the mother of one dead soldier has now chosen or been been coerced to do the same is the absolute pits.
The woman is wrong and the media is worse for reporting it; she has done far more to degrade her son's death than any politician or journalist ever would dare.
Posted by: Malcolm | 10 November 2009 at 16:29
Can't stand Gordon Brown politically. He is inept and has virtually ruined this country along with Tony Blair. What was he thinking? If he struggles and has to use a black felt tip pen - surely he should have made sure that he had the names spelt correctly. However, grieving as I know she is, I cannot find it in my heart to understand why this mother made this public and then taped a private conversation with him for all the world to hear. Gordon Brown has broken the military covenant, I've said so many times; but even he doesn't deserve this bucket load. I can think of many many things he does deserve it for, but not this. It was sloppy, inattentive and rude - but this Government and in particular, this cabinet, has that stamp on them all over. They are not going to change unless we have an election, a clear exit strategy and timetable from both Iraq and Afghanistan which involves the useless United Nations and other useless countries that wont lift a finger to help resolve it. It is high time the blue berets were in and we had an international peacekeeping force which SATURATES particularly Afghanistan, which seeks out and brings to justice the drug lords and destroys the opium farms which are flourishing under UK and US guard basically. Massive international investment in infrastructure is required eventually. We have to do this now, we can't get out of it. I hope and pray that not many more lives are lost in its pursuit and that when we are done the country and the people flourish as the real testament to the blood our children, fathers, brothers and husbands have spilled there.
Posted by: katie | 10 November 2009 at 16:07
BROWN is simply living up to what he is ........ a control freak without emotions ... except for his own ........ devoid of rational behaviour .. except when in front of cameras ..... unable to really comprehend what it is like to be mr and mrs ordinary slaving away to make ends meet because of his governments inability to see the monster THEY THEMSELVES have created !!
Posted by: winston churchill | 10 November 2009 at 15:59