h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just wondering what everyone else thinks about this...

Is bad handwriting an insult, or, is a national newspaper exploiting a grieving mother, using her to win points against an unpopular prime minister.

I'd also be interested in whether it's legal to record and then publish a 'private' phone conversation between a politician and an individual.

I think it's a devestated mother lashing out at anyone and anything who comes near her. Apparently her son's wounds were survivable, but there weren't enough helicopters to get him out of the field. She had to listen to the complete list of his wounds in the inquest, poor woman.

I think it is remarkably honourable of Gordon Brown to write to spouses and parents - apparently he can end up writing several letters for each soldier killed. I am also astonished they are hand-written letters.

I could talk about the Bush Administration's treatment of its war dead. I won't.

Ben

My 2p's worth: I know he is blind in one eye, but his handwritng is truly appaling for someone in his position. That apart, I do think his heart was in the right place however, and to send "Personal" letters of condolence is a good thing (and the very least) he could do. I appreciate the mother was probably upset at the handwritng and the misspelt name - she is grieving after all - but I do think that "Somebody" then contacted the Sun and "Somebody" has probably/possibly made money by giving them the story. If profit was made by anybody, then in my opinion and in the circumstances, that is just nasty. As for the Sun? Well, the Sun does what the Sun does at election times - it picks a party to pick on and then puts the boot in at every opportunity so that - if it all comes off - they can then crow that it was "their" support that gave the other party the victory.
All in all, it really is a grubby little story spun into a frenzy by people who should know better.

Why should the PM have neat handwriting?

Pride in its appearance perhaps? It does not have to be spot on perfect in every respect, just a little more neater would have done it is all..........

When I heard that the lads name had been mis-spelled, I hadn't heard the letters were hand-written, so I just assumed it was a bit of lazy typing and a bit disrespectful.

Now that I've seen the handwritten letters, I feel the same as Mrs Zen: that it's quite noble of him to take the time to write these letters and personally, I'd take the quirks of his handwriting to be a mark of respect: he's more concerned with what he's saying that how it looks - that's quite personal.

The mother in question has nothing but my sympathy, I can't imagine the grief she's suffering and in her shoes I'd probably lash out at anything that came too close. The Sun is just using her to score cheap, nasty political points with a moronic readership. But then if I ever had to choose three words to describe the Sun 'cheap', 'nasty' and 'moronic' would be the three.

Yes I'm pretty disgusted by the Sun, (nothing new about that). Someone in that mother's position will be intensely emotionally vulnerable at such a time. IMO the Sun cynically took advantage of this, for its own political/economic reasons.

I also wonder if there is more to the story of how the tape recording of the phone call happened.

Yep good on Gordon for writing. But hopefully he'll just take a bit more care over it in future. I do sympathise though because mine is pretty appalling too.

It appears that he has already referred to the soldier as James rather than Janes in the House of Commons. What *is* clear from the letter is that it is an "m", not an "n". Why does Brown continue to lie about it being his "bad handwriting"?

Whilst it is unclear whether this is a transcription error by the Prime Minister, or whether the error was in the information given to him, it is not beyond him to blame his civil servants. He has a long and dishonourable record of doing so...so if that is the source of the error, I'm surprised that he's not blaming some poor sod at the MoD. This rather points to it being the PM's error rather than anyone else's.

As usual, this government's immediate fall-back position when being found out is to lie about it. This then causes more problems as the lies are found out. Surely, after 12 years, they should have figured this out?

RF

RF - I picked up a copy of this the other day:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Political-Lying-Peter-Oborne/dp/0743275608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257863957&sr=1-1

I can only read it a page or so at a time, I become so enraged.

oh, what a happy nation you must be the only thing to worry about is whether or not the prime minister has neat handwriting ...
and whether or not he knows the correct names of all soldiers ...

I've not read that one, but I have read The Triumph Of The Political Class (to which this could reasonably be called a sequel). It is frightening how the business of government is conducted these days. Oborne does hit the nail pretty well on the head.

RF

>> the only thing to worry about is whether or not the prime minister has neat handwriting ... <<

The things I worry about are:

The PM cannot even write in a straight line. (Doesn't he have one of those guide sheets that you put underneath the piece of paper?)

The PM writes like a child.

Compared to other examples of the PM's writing (which can be searched online) this *does* look like it was written in a rush. If he was taking the time and care that his spokesman claims, then he would (i) write more neatly, (ii) if he made a mistake (which he did) start over again, rather than just write over it.

It is traditional for Prime Ministers to write to the relatives of soldiers. What it appears in this case is that this PM is less concerned about it, and just dashes off an untidy scrawl, thinks "yeah that'll do" and posts it without checking.

RF

>It is frightening how the business of government is conducted these days.<

these days? It has always been thus. MacMillan and the Windscale incident. Thatcher and the Westland helicopter affair.

I think it is the way things are don, but it does seem that Gordon is far more naive than predecessors in 'news management'. In a funny way I find that quite endearing.

>> It is traditional for Prime Ministers to write to the relatives of soldiers.

Since when?

It is traditional for **officers** to write to the relatives of members of the services who were killed. My parents met because my father paid a visit of condolence to her parents following the death of their son.

How long have PMs been writing to the relatives of members of the services. (Let's not forget members of the Air Force and the Navy, while we're at it).

He didn't have to write anything... But he tried. Points for trying, yes.

I have deeper problems with people being angry when their own offspring have chosen to join the army... It's not GB's fault he made the decision to make that his career.

I know I would be heartbroken if I had children who decided a life in the forces was for them. Whether they died in service or not. I cant imagine the pain she's going through but attacking GB has actually given him my sympathy.

Like you, I cannot imagine her pain. I can however entirely understand her anger, if it is true that her son's wounds were survivable. It's a deep betrayal she's suffered.

Prime Minister does an honourable, decent thing that most Prime Ministers wouldn't bother to do. Sneery types have a go at him for it. C'est la Vie.

Gordon Brown doesn't impress me as a Prime Minister much but in doing this he's impressed me a bit as a man. The gutter press, on the other hand, don't do anything that surprises me. Last night someone said that they thought this would backfire on the Sun. Fat chance, alas.

>> Since when? <<

Margaret Thatcher started the tradition. All prime ministers since then have continued it.

RF

To be honest I think I prefer the fact that Gordon Brown's handwriting is a bit shabby. I personally think if you've had the time to spend perfecting your letters when you were younger you haven't spent enough time writing things of substance.

But that's just my own skewed view of it as my handwriting is awful and getting worse by the year.

Is interpreting someone's personality through their handwriting not akin to astrology?

What do Sun readers think that Brown was actually trying to do - what was the spirit of the letter, and why was it hand-written rather than mass produced and impersonal?

If anyone else took the time to do this after the death of someone you loved, would you throw it back at them and contact the papers complaining that you'd been insulted? And then record a private telephone call when they rang to apologise?

Who's behaving "decently" in this whole sordid episode?