Where does Brown begin?
Saturday, 14. November 2009, 20:15:08
It's a Jimmy Webb song if you were wondering, but as usual it's not the subject of the diatribe that you just know is coming.
Over the last week or so it has transpired that George Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and consequently quite a busy chap, has been going up to his writing room (Or whatever it is in that rather big house we're letting him live in) and sending personal handwritten letters of condolence to the relatives of soldiers killed in action.
He's been doing this since he took over the job and for a while no one bar the recipients even knew he was doing it, but even after people started to notice it was never actually publicised. For people like me the first we knew about it was when The Sun declared it was disgusting.
The reason it was disgusting was that he mis-spelt someone's name and she took such offence at it that she contacted the world's most anti-Gordon Brown newspaper to complain about it. They of course reproduced the whole letter with the "terrible handwriting" and "disgusting spelling mistakes" ringed 'round the way your school teacher used to do.
Brown was, naturally, mortified by this, and telephoned the lady in question to appologise and explain, and this is the point where I become a minority of one, because the woman taped the conversation and passed that on to The Sun as well. Everyone else excuses this because she's lost her son and she must just be thrashing about trying to make some sense of it. Me, I start from the position that she even thought to record the conversation. Why has she got the equipment to do this in the first place? Is she aware that it's illegal to record a conversation without telling the other party (Strange, but true)?
To me the only conclusion that I can come to is that she's deliberately using the death of her son to create an anti-government furure and I don't know about you but I find that kind of disgusting. All my sympathy has dried up like the Sahara on a particularly hot summer's day, all I can see is some hypocrite weighing up the death of her son against the chance to help another party into office. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
In Britain, when you're approaching your 100th birthday, a friend or relative can write to tell the queen and you'll get a congratulatory telegram from her maj herself. The queen doesn't receive the request, it's intercepted long before that and sent to the 100th birthday dept. where a civil servant sends the telegram on the appropriate day. Queenly involvement in all this? None. Everyone knows it, but no one minds.
George Brown was using his own time to personally handwrite message of condolence, and this woman and The Sun criticise him for it? Believe me I'm no fan of Brown, but this makes my blood boil.
Incidentally, The Sun also mis-spelt the lady's name on its website.
She didn't complain to anyone about that though.
Over the last week or so it has transpired that George Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and consequently quite a busy chap, has been going up to his writing room (Or whatever it is in that rather big house we're letting him live in) and sending personal handwritten letters of condolence to the relatives of soldiers killed in action.
He's been doing this since he took over the job and for a while no one bar the recipients even knew he was doing it, but even after people started to notice it was never actually publicised. For people like me the first we knew about it was when The Sun declared it was disgusting.
The reason it was disgusting was that he mis-spelt someone's name and she took such offence at it that she contacted the world's most anti-Gordon Brown newspaper to complain about it. They of course reproduced the whole letter with the "terrible handwriting" and "disgusting spelling mistakes" ringed 'round the way your school teacher used to do.
Brown was, naturally, mortified by this, and telephoned the lady in question to appologise and explain, and this is the point where I become a minority of one, because the woman taped the conversation and passed that on to The Sun as well. Everyone else excuses this because she's lost her son and she must just be thrashing about trying to make some sense of it. Me, I start from the position that she even thought to record the conversation. Why has she got the equipment to do this in the first place? Is she aware that it's illegal to record a conversation without telling the other party (Strange, but true)?
To me the only conclusion that I can come to is that she's deliberately using the death of her son to create an anti-government furure and I don't know about you but I find that kind of disgusting. All my sympathy has dried up like the Sahara on a particularly hot summer's day, all I can see is some hypocrite weighing up the death of her son against the chance to help another party into office. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
In Britain, when you're approaching your 100th birthday, a friend or relative can write to tell the queen and you'll get a congratulatory telegram from her maj herself. The queen doesn't receive the request, it's intercepted long before that and sent to the 100th birthday dept. where a civil servant sends the telegram on the appropriate day. Queenly involvement in all this? None. Everyone knows it, but no one minds.
George Brown was using his own time to personally handwrite message of condolence, and this woman and The Sun criticise him for it? Believe me I'm no fan of Brown, but this makes my blood boil.
Incidentally, The Sun also mis-spelt the lady's name on its website.
She didn't complain to anyone about that though.
WIDGETIZE