Leading article: A vicious and unfair personal attack
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Jacqui Janes was clearly upset by the letter of condolence she received last month from Gordon Brown in the wake of the death of her son, Jamie, in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, it does seem grossly unfair of Ms Janes to interpret the letter as an "insult" from the Prime Minister.
If the letter was clumsily drafted, the responsibility surely lies with Mr Brown's poor eyesight and bad handwriting rather than any intention to offend. Moreover, the sentiments expressed in the letter, which Ms Janes has made public, were entirely sensitive. There was nothing in the slightest bit "disrespectful" about its contents. If Ms Janes chooses to interpret the letter as a deliberate insult, that is her right. But the rest of us can make up our own minds about the Prime Minister's intentions when he drafted it. Sadly some elements of the media have used this unfortunate business to mount a viciously personal attack on Mr Brown.
The Sun newspaper, which last month announced with great fanfare its support for the Conservative Party, has chosen to fan the flames of this affair in a quite disgraceful manner. It has used Ms Janes' reaction, along with accusations that the Prime Minister failed to bow his head during the remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph at the weekend, to imply that he is personally indifferent to the fate of British troops and does not truly respect the sacrifices they have made.
This is an incendiary suggestion at a time when British troops are engaged in a fierce anti-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan. British service personnel have endured their most deadly year since the Falklands War. The mood of the country towards our military presence in Afghanistan is increasingly volatile. Responsible politicians and media outlets need to tread carefully while feelings are running so high.
A robust public debate on the Government's strategy in Afghanistan is entirely justified. But Mr Brown's political opponents should think very carefully before attempting to present the Prime Minister as somehow personally hostile to the best interests of British troops. These attacks are not only unfair; in the present febrile climate they risk being downright irresponsible.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I quite agree, although the newspapers are riding high over MP's expenses scandals etc. I can't help but think that all this disrespect has gone too far. Mr Cameron is not immune from this kind of treatment and I'm sure that, if he is elected, after the initial euphoria he will be treated the same. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister for God's sake, the post deserves respect even if you don't respect the man. I'm sure that in the long run the papers are in for a backlash, either from the public who will seek better (or worse) commentary on the internet. If you want aggression, innuendo, scandal and outrage the web does it better.
The really dangerous thing is that this constant disrespect will fan discontent into disorder and direct action. The rise of armed direct action would necessitate severe curbs on press freedom. Abuse of that freedom is dangerous, particularly to foreign owned newspaper proprietors seeking to influence election outcomes. You couldn't see the Russians or Iranians putting up with that one.
like most folk i have simply assumed that most politicians are personally indifferent to the welfare of the poor bloody armed services - and to that of almost anyone else outside the national and (especially) european magic jobs and expenses for the boys and girls circles..
'vicious and unfair'? - any politician who so loses the plot that his sleazy PR-inspired handwritten letter of quasi-commiseration makes this sort of an error gets what he deserves from the hurt and now insulted recipient;
actually i wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was a set-up by a non-brownie getting their own back?
having bad eyesight? Do you think that the Queen or Guardsman Janes' commanding officer send out such untidy letters?
Anyone with self awareness of himself would have learnt that if one is to write letters of condolence by hand, they should be written tidily, without mistakes, and with a fountain pen (not a greasy felt tip). Gordon Brown's appalling slap dash badly spaced, hastily written scribble says everything about the man - none of it positive. Sending out semi-legible letters reveals that the sender couldn't give a damn what the recipient thinks and that the reader will have to try to fathom what it says as the writer is too important to care. Bad eyesight is a pathetic excuse as is "I've got bad handwriting" - the man has had years to try to improve it and the fact that he hasn't bothered says he really doesn't want to because it's too much of an effort.
Why are you criticising the recipient of the letter for drawing the conclusion that this piece of shoddy work is anything other than an insult? Anyone looking at it will draw the same conclusion - it is messy and its content says nothing personal - it's a standard condolence letter.
That the PM has taken the trouble to write to the families of servicemen is part of his job description as he is part of the shower who sent them to their deaths without properly funding or equipping the armed services to do the dirty work of this Government which hasn't even got a plan as to what we are really doing there. That he has made a botch up of even this simple task is entirely in character as he made a botch up of pretty much everything he has touched.
That said, Gordon Brown given his known physical limitations, should be dictating what he wants to say to someone to type it up properly and just sign the finished result. There is no point now in not doing so in the future and if the sentiments expressed are genuine, it is just as personal. The letterhead and signature are likely more important as a personal acknowledgement to the bereaved than a page of grossly illegible handwriting.
You lot should be ashamed of yourselves.
These are the people of Britain and I am also furious that these people are robbing us of our heritage and handing us over to foreign cultures who have no understanding for Democracy. She had a right to record it other wise there would be the usual bland denial. She had the absolute right to take him to task and record it. You are allowed to record anything. I do it all the time when I am dealing with the arrogant lying banks who although they have owed me money will not answer my recorded letters. The Ombudsman service even has problems getting them to respond. So I record when they phone or I phone so as to get answers. So record all you want, its your phone.
If your son bled to death because no medivac helicopters were available because the PM didn't want to pay for them, you'd be cross.
As for the Sun... it's saying what the rest of us have been saying for years - Gordon Brown is unfit to be PM and it's time he was exposed for the second rate oaf he is.
Murdoch manipulates the press to manipulate the population to manipulate the politicians. Qui bono?
All the newspapers in the last decade have cosied up to Labour... even the Torygraph has pinkos writing apologetic articles which are pro-Labour. Newspapers aren't going to win any elections this time around: personal emails and Youtube will win it.
ALL Politicians are a waste of space but this Brown fellow is a walking disaster to the country and himself. If he can't get a letter of condolence right he doesn't deserve to be in charge of tying-up his own shoe-laces let alone anything else.
Stop trying to excuse the idiot.
As for the Sun, it's been pro-Labour these past 15 years, and its stock in trade, like the Independent, is to criticise politicians when bad decisions have been made. It's now pro-Tory... it usually goes with the flow when it can see where its readers' sympathies lie. Murdoch will get no special treatment from the Tories if he opposes them... he's has a run for his money with the Labour lot, and he can see the writing on the wall that they are now a bunch of losers.
This episode speaks volumes for the organisational mess in Number 10 right now. But that does not mean that I prefer the game playing that went on under TB. Brown is probably sincere but hopeless.
Along with this episode goes the bank transaction tax, Brown's latest idea, that was not even floated in the diplomatic back rooms before he blurted it out. Did it occur to him that others might have different ideas, and that those might be as influential as the USA and many others?
Rescuing the world is Brown's self-announced speciality. Perhaps he should concentrate on rescuing himself.
The fact is that the Prime Minister - the most important person in government (OK, open to debate) took the time to hand write a letter to the soldiers family should speak for itself.
For the Sun to abuse the soldiers death, and his families grief, to score points is possibly the lowest they have ever sunk, and that is saying something.
They should crawl back under their stone.
Don't let your prejudice against the Sun colour your views.
But to pillory the man, as it seems, for his handwriting is demeaningly unworthy - not least because she does so from behind the ramparts of her bereavement, shielded, in this post-Diana era where "feelings" seem to justify almost any excess, from challenges and criticisms. The effect of this will be to remove any semblance the human touch from future letters.
And now, of course, she's even more protected by having "the Sun" on her side. This, of course, is just the sort of journalism that's native to "the Sun", notwithstanding the urbanity of Trevor Kavanagh and the plausibly articulate pugnacity of George Pascoe-Watson.
The paper yet again provides the best counter-argument to the ideal of popular democracy in the UK context, and even, perhaps, a long-term threat to its healthy survival.
Scummy at every level, "the Sun" leaves a thin layer of scum on all the parts of British life that it touches.
Though at least, just for once, all this has achieved something I thought virtually impossible: that I'd experience a surge of genuine sympathy and fellow-feeling for Gordon Brown.
Argentina dictator was ready for a talk and negotiation. No,Margaret Teacher would not take that and declare war without blinking. So many British soldiers died.
Reputation and face saving only can be saved by allowing the soldiers to die,thats what happening now.
Winning in Falkland war was clear,how can you define the winning in Afghanistan? You can not kill all of them,Alqaida and Taliban can not be there only way to get high value of those individuals bribe the Pakistani army heads to find them. its an ugly option option but only option considering the reality of the situation.As long as innocent people murdered those Afg-Pak border people will not give you the information about those individuals. I am an ordinary people I can guest this becouce it is about ordiary peoples behavier. All those drones killing people and you expect cooperation from them.
It is so stupid to stay there. Soviet Union lost the war there. Can't you get the hint ?
I have no doubt that Mr Brown wasn't intentionally disrespectful but the harsh reality is that he did get Jamie Janes' name wrong and that is a dreadful error on his behalf. Imagine if your child died fighting a morally dubious war on foreign soil during a time when we constantly hear how ill equipped our troops are and the lack of support they then get from our government if injured. You then receive a letter of condolence from the Prime Minister getting your child's name wrong, how would you feel - would you jump to Mr Brown's defence or would emotion take over?
To use your own words it is also 'grossly unfair' of the Independent to criticise a grieving mother who feels insulted by the prime minister regardless of either the Prime Ministers intent or the editor of this newspapers personal view on the matter. This article is actually a very similar style of reporting (for want of a more accurate word) to the Sun's. Yes the Sun's behavior is disgraceful but that is nothing new from that offensive adult comic and is hardly unique in the wonderful world of the media. Thinking about it I don't recall the independent being all that respectful to Gordon and Sarah Brown when they lost their prematurely born daughter, it just took advantage of a photo opportunity (quality journalism that).
Gordon Brown made an easily avoidable mistake which has been deliberately reported badly and turned into moral panic by a Murdoch owned newspaper (shocking I know), the best thing we can do is stop giving the Sun the attention it wants. Using your leading article to have a pop at Jacqui Janes is not the way to go, criticise The Sun all you want but opening your article with two paragraphs targeting Mrs Janes just to make a point is also 'downright irresponsible'.
I don't think Brown's the best PM we've had, but I wonder how many letters of condolence Thatcher wrote during the Falklands War. I'm guessing none.
I wish the relatives of those soldiers killed in action would show some dignity now and again. Whether they should be in Afghanistan or not, it's what the troops deserve.
"A robust public debate on the Government's strategy in Afghanistan is entirely justified. But Mr Brown's political opponents should think very carefully before attempting to present the Prime Minister as somehow personally hostile to the best interests of British troops. These attacks are not only unfair; in the present febrile climate they risk being downright irresponsible."
Professor Jean Bricmont elaborates on your position:
"(I)t is axiomatic that the motivations of our governments are pure and basically identical to those presented in official discourse (defense of human rights or democracy, etc). One is of course free to challenge the attainability of these objectives or the wisdom of those who try to implement them; but to question the purity of the motivations or their legitimacy is to put oneself outside the bounds of respectable discourse.
Thus the debate will typically be centered on questions such as: do we have enough power, resolve, etc. to achieve our goals? Are our leaders sufficiently clever, determined, and strong? The more vociferous the debates, the more the implicit assumptions concerning the nobility of the intentions come to be reinforced" (Bricmont, J, 'The responsibility of the intellectual', in 'The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky', PP:284-5, 2005).
Many people believe that The Independent is committed to holding power to account. However, I cannot find one article in which you assert: "A robust public debate on the Government's motives for being in Afghanistan is entirely justified". Will you start robustly challenging the Government's stated reasons for being in Afghanistan, or will you remain unwilling to place yourself outside the bounds of polite discourse?