http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8349757.stm

Oh dear...

I really can't decide how I feel about this.

Part of me thinks that if he's going to write to the bereaved parents of soldiers, then he should make sure he's spelling their names properly (although in this case it's only "apparently misspelled") but the larger part of me thinks that it's good of him to take the time to write to each and every parent, he can't really help the state of his handwriting, or any issues he has with his eyesight and it's the thought that counts.

I'm sure that if he had form letters typed up and just signed them, then he would be accused of being callous and not really making the effort, but he hand writes every letter and whatever the state of his handwriting, having a go at him for something he can't help is a bit churlish. It's not as though a properly written letter would bring her son back, it's just a man, making an effort to be considerate.

I agree - he is making an effort to acknowledge the loss of a family. However, if the letter The Sun is showing is genuine, then it’s a complete shambles, and should not have been sent. These things need to be checked before sending out.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... Brown.html

+1, very well put

As someone on the Sun website commented, at least he cares enough to take the time to write the letters.

Does anyone else feel this is the first shot fired in the Sun's campaign to elect a Tory government at the next election?

Good on Gordon for writing each letter by hand. Sadly, his handwriting is not acceptable. The spin doctors have tried to pull the old "he's got eyesight problems" card, but if my handwriting is a pre-teen scrawl, I would generally have expected my senior staff to suggest a proper typed letter to which I can add personal comments if I wished.

They were suggesting on the BBC that a typed letter could appear to be a pro-forma, and would be more impersonal. Brown apparently wants to do this.

I can understand that. It's what I would want to do in his place, but then at least my handwriting is legible.

So... he wrote a letter to a soldiers mum, his handwriting isn't great, he may or may not have mis-spelt the guys name, (His name is Jamie, and James was written?) and the Sun would like his head on a spike.

Have I missed anything?

Give the guy a break already!

Leg, arm or rib

If your going to write such a personal letter to someone who is probably not going to be that appreciative of you, then its not much to ask for the correct spelling of the name and handwriting that is legible.

Sue Arnold knows a thing or two about trying to write when you can't see.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... dier-sight

A story out of nothing.

I don't like Labour but I do think it was good of Gordon Brown to try and make the effort of writing to the bereaved families - remember he is totally blind in 1 eye and partially sighted in the other so give him a break for a change.

He could have had it typed up for him but that would then come over as impersonal.

I agree the handwriting the letters was a good thing but in hindsight, proofreading would have been a good idea.

This entire thing stinks of conspiracy. She's now recording telephone calls, ambushing him into a discussion about equipment & supplies and selling the tapes to The Sun?

AFAIAC She's now despicable and far more heartless than Browns poorly written letter.

Much as I'm not a fan of Brown generally, I think he deserves kudos for taking the time out when easier options can realistically be deployed.

If the woman had simply communicated to Brown her dissatisfaction at the spelling then that would have been fine and a reasonable point instead. However, she's way past that at this stage, and it really comes across that she's being fed lines by the Sun in order to grind their axe...