Powerful man has poor handwriting, shock!

There is a great deal of fuss being made over Gordon Brown's letter of condolence to the family of a soldier killed in Afghanistan. So the Prime Minister has poor handwriting, what a shock. He is also blind in one eye and partially blind in the other which probably has an effect on his neatness. He has now apologised but just how bad, in reality, was that letter?

Let's look at the errors that the newspaper is making such a big thing of.

First of all he has written "Dear Mrs James" rather than "Dear Mrs Janes". OK, it's a good idea to get somebody else to proofread, especially when writing something this sensitive but the truth is that "James" is a far more common name than "Janes". I'm sure that he was aware of the correct spelling but the mistaken substitution of a common spelling for an uncommon one is surely understandable? It's a mistake that anyone could make.

The second problem is that there is an obvious correction that has been made to the dead soldiers first name "Jamie" where the last letter has been written incorrectly and then gone over to correct it. Perhaps it would have been better to start the whole thing again, on the other hand I think most people would probably do the same.

There are several spelling errors. Or are there? Condolences is written as condolencs, greatest as greatst and colleagues as colleagus. This is actually the same error three times- the omission of an "e". I'm perfectly sure that the Prime Minister can spell all of these words correctly, this is an error of haste rather than of spelling. I have similar problems sometimes when I'm typing - mistakes that I only notice when I read it back (or more commonly half a second after hitting send). I also have a regular failing where I am too slow in taking my finger from the caps key so that I have two initial capitals on sentences. I pick these things up (sometimes) in proofreading but the Prime Minister may well find that harder to do because of his eyesight. I'd find it impossible without my glasses.

What else is there? There's a you instead of your and, allegedly a securiity instead of security. I've looked at the letter and I'm not so sure it isn't just his handwriting again in the latter case, and the former is again a fairly common error of haste.

The final thing is perhaps the silliest criticism of all. He has signed off with "My sincere condolences, Yours sincerely, Gordon Brown". The complaint is the repetition of "sincere". What's so terrible about that?

As I said, Gordon Brown has apologised. He is said to be mortified that he has given offence. But does he really have any great cause for such feelings? I'd say not. He's written a letter that has a few mistakes in it. Maybe it does look as if it was overly hasty but I don't know, and nor does anyone else, where he was and what else was happening when he wrote it. The errors are the sort that anyone might make. I'm no fan of Gordon Brown but frankly I think he should be criticised when he deserves it, not when he doesn't. This elaborate nit-picking of his letter looks to me to be targeted solely because it's him.

And I can't believe I'm defending Gordon Brown!