| 
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by And then, again, it's Mrs Zen
*is completely distractged by lmgtfy....*
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by  Reddyfreddy
>> You judge me wrongly, RF <<
So why do you not admit he made a mistake in the spelling?
RF
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
RF:
Following your sarcastic link above...would you perhaps like to clarify which of the results yielded gives the best, newspaper quality link to The Letter? Your link only revealed a selection of news articles. Which are we meant to click on?
I'm looking at one on dead trees. Gruaniad, p7. Honestly...it *is* a matter of judgement...but Brown lackey that I am ( ) I see no obvious misspellings or crossings out.
 ...but I have a slight feeling that I'm talking to someone who's been told A Bad Thing Has Happened and who is agreeing unquestioningly.
You might be right. You might be wrong. *I* can't say. I'm sincerely unsure how you can.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by ~ jwf ~ Eureka! A symphony of epiphanies and other eye-openering empathies - (no football please)
OK it's supposed to be a UK centric thread. But the wide
range of responses to this issue is quite revealing.
 And perhaps in need of some objective comment.
The notion that these personal letters began with Thatcher should put some historical perspective on the question. I find it absurdly funny to contemplate any PM in any war prior to that being able to write personal letters for every fallen soldier. Wars have historically killed millions. Talk about writer's cramp.
Even Britain's last 19th century ventures into Afghanistan/the Punjab/Waziristan/the Khyber pass resulted in losses over 100,000 over several attempts over several years. (Makes any sensible person wonder why they would ever want to go back?) 
>> The issues about equipment and helicopters has been going since the at least the first Gulf war...having to buy your own equipment is a joke... <<
Again, history tells us that soldiers and sailors have always been ill-supplied. Ships have foundered and armies lost for want a few spares. The survivors, the heroes, made do by killing people and stealing their stuff.
We've all heard the old cliche about 'for want of a nail a shoe was lost, for want of a shoe a horse was lost, for want of a horse a messenger was lost, for want of a message a battle was lost and for want of a victory the war was lost'.
Again, when are they gonna learn.
BTW: Canada's losses in Afghanistan are neck and neck with the UK. And these are mostly fine, upstanding, good-looking, soft-spoken, hockey-playing 'Captain Johnny Canuck'-type idealists who've been led to believe it is our Christian duty to tell savages how to raise their daughters.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Reddyfreddy
Oh for Bob's sake, do I have to do everything for you? Here, try this one: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/lat...ortified39-by-condolence.5808774.jp
RF
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
I hadn't realised you were a regular Scotsman reader, RF. Was that the first place you saw the letter and thus made up your mind?
However...sincerely...what I see in those red circles is the kind of scrawl that might, typically, be made by a man with 30% sight in his one eye, writing with a felt-tip pen. Agreed, the names are amongst the unclear parts.
But you know what? I still see it hard to fathom the insult. What would you have had him do differently, *given that he cannot write with any other implement*? Sign a word-processed letter, maybe?
I ask once again:
Is the quality of our politicians really to be decided on their penmanship?
(incidentally...the Grauniad have a completely pish graphological exercise for which Ben Goldacre should gow to town on them)
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Flying Ants; formerly Effers
Until I read on this thread about how severe his sight problems are I really didn't know the extent of them. I wonder how many other people are as unaware. Having now finally seen a copy of the letter, (many thanks RF), I think it would suggest the possibility of some kind of disability, and now having seen it with that knowledge of that it makes more sense. I think maybe the PM should be more open about it.
Maybe in future he could send 2 letters? One type written, entirely correctly spelt, and one hand written. I think people would be touched to get one still written in his own hand and make some allowance in the light of his difficulties. The typed copy would be the one that properly conveyed what he was trying to say in the hand written one that is slightly illegible.
Just a thought anyway.
Apparently the mother is being interviewed on Newsnight tonight.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Edward the Bonobo - andafewmore
A sensible thought on the 2 letters, Effers.
>> I think maybe the PM should be more open about it.
Well...maybe. But perhaps credit him for not having played the sympathy card? Ever. He has long suffered from his painful eye condition. At what point should he have some clean? He was recently forced to Come Out by Andrew Marr over the issue of prescription painkillers.
Compare and contrast also the political capital that he, on the one hand, and David Cameron have made out of their children.
*And why does everyone see him as dour*? I swear...in the flash, he's as genial as can be.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Reddyfreddy
Ed: the same photo has been reproduced in all the online media.
Now, are you so blind that you cannot see? Look at all the "m"s and "n"s in the letter, and if you still maintain that it isn't addressed to Mrs James, then I suggest you do something about the  that you're wearing, or take yourself down to Specsavers, pronto.
The important question that remains is: why does the PM maintain there's nothing wrong with his eyesight? Why is he still lying to us about it? Apparently, one of his aides sends emails to him in 36-point type if he wants the PM to read it.
I have no problems with a blind PM. But why does he continue to lie about his ability to read, write, and see? It's clearly impeding his ability to do his job. He should get help.
RF
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Reddyfreddy
Incidentally, Tony Blair used the two-letter approach when writing his.
RF
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by TRiG (Ireland) Human rights under attack in Uganda. Look it up. Excellent coverage on the blog "Box Turtle Bulletin"
"Apparently, one of his aides sends emails to him in 36-point type if he wants the PM to read it."
Text on a computer screen can be zoomed, you know.
TRiG.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 10, 2009 by Reddyfreddy
Someone should tell Gordon that.
RF
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 11, 2009 by Beatrice
In other news yesterday (no honestly, there was some!) I learned that Margaret Thatcher always used to call Garrett FitzGerald "Gareth".
What an insult! Should someone not have told her? I demand that she admit she made a mistake, and hand back her baronetcy forthwith!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 11, 2009 by The Menthol Penguin : SHADOW Barman
<<I have no problems with a blind PM. But why does he continue to lie about his ability to read, write, and see? It's clearly impeding his ability to do his job. He should get help.>>
So based on one letter he can't do his job? Or do you have more evidence that i don't know about, seeing as i don't watch the news/read he papers
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 11, 2009 by Christopher
Anyone want to give odds on Cameron making capital out of this at PMQs this afternoon? If he doesn't I'd respect him a little. If he does... It's the Sun Wot Won It.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 11, 2009 by Zagreb - go and see "Moon", you won't regret it!
I think it's hardly a secret that Gordon Brown is blind in one eye and has limited (around 50%) vision in the other. As far as I'm aware, he's never denied this. If he says "this doesn't affect my job" then it means it doesn't affect his job (because any correspondence is in large text to make it easy to read etc). Why would he deliberately pretend he can read things when he can't? What could he possibly gain from this?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 11, 2009 by Vip
Mistakes happen. Yes, it was a very unfortunate time and place to make a mistake, but they happen.
If I had a quid for every time my surname was mis-spelt, I'd be rich (well, not rich. But you know what I mean). With a surname that is so similar to a more common one, I doubt this is the first time it has happened to her.
Yes, it sucks to be on the receiving end, especially in such a delicate situation, but I'd be pleased someone took the time to handwrite me a letter, even if they couldn't quite get the name right. But then, I'm used to people mis-spelling my name. 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 11, 2009 by kzwg - welcome to the MMXs
<<Good of you to correct Gordon's spelling for him, kzwg.>>
To be honest, I hadn't really corrected anything. Just typed it from a photograph of the letter in the paper. Admittedly some of the words were a bit indistinct.
I think leaving aside questions over its presentation the actual content of the letter was very kind. In the circumstances I don't think he could have phrased his condolences much better or with more sympathy. It's a shame the mother whom it was intended to console seems not to have been helped by it, possibly due to the interference of others.
<<"It is with the greatest of sadness that I write to offer you and your family my personal condolences on the death of your son, Jamie. I know from colleagues that Jamie was a brave, selfless and wholly professional soldier who was held in the highest esteem and regard by all who worked with him. I know that words can offer little comfort at a time of grief...">>
|
| | |
| |
Posted Nov 11, 2009 by Br. Robyn Hoode - Ginger and Spice and all things nice.
If it helps, the conversation here about this is FAR more intelligent than some I've been having elsewhere. Like people who are claiming that if GB is going to sign a "hand-typed letter" (I'm not sure what that is either) that was written up by someone else then the least they could do is spell check it before they got him to sign it.
After I put them right on the various issues with their assumptions about this, not to mention the lack of logic in mixing writing and typing and the fact they hadn't even noticed, they changed the argument to something about if the government were paying more of our taxes to the forces instead of to immigrants then all of this wouldn't have happened.
I had a bit of a rant at them then... Going from the rights and wrongs of an untidy letter to immigration policy in one fell swoop. Way to make a point.
No doubt I'll get a whole bunch of uninformed grief back eventually but so far today nothing's been said since.
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
