Captain Tom's daughter

😂

I tuned out these thieves when she kept rocking up at events. Wimbledon was just nauseating when she stood up to receive applause like she was royalty.

They should be made to pay their ill-gotten gains to worthy charities.

I wonder if the children were complicit as they started to pop up with her everywhere.

It was for hydrotherapy relief. She had carpel tunnel syndrome and Repetitive strain injury from getting her dad up for GMTV every day, dressing him, polishing his medals and greasing his Zimmer frame to make him walk faster. She also had to endlessly count huge sums of money and divide it into ‘one for you’ and ‘one for me’ piles. It was physically gruelling work.

It appears that since they haven't actually done anything for which they can be prosecuted that they will go their own sweet way. They simply don't care that people know what they've done - legally they probably can't be touched for the apparent scam and they don't care what people think of them. They've squeezed in just on the right side of criminality, though they have misled everyone.

Personally I hope that some way can be found to extract some of the money they have appropriated and possibly prosecute them, though it isn't obvious how when you read the report:
www.gov.uk/government/news/family-repeatedly-benefitted-from-mismanaged-captain-tom-foundation-investigation-finds
Apparently she is now selling £3,500 life coaching sessions on her website.

God the insane generalisations. Are we really this dim on mumsnet?

Nor did I. Like you I had my suspicions from the start.

Me too. All very dodgy from the start.

God they are every shade of shady aren’t they. She and her husband. How morbidity fascinating and hideously repellent all at the same time. Crap legacy for the well meaning little old fella though. That pair have tarnished everything.

They were still rolling him out with his full rack of medals on in Barbados, at times, there are still pictures around. Who does that? My thinking is that it was part of the "brand".

I have an open mind on Tom Moore's intentions so like others feel uneasy about how much control he actually had by that point.

The whole thing reeked of exploitation from the start. The way no one gave a shit that they openly and proudly flounced lockdown rules as people who’d lost jobs, businesses and loved ones spent Christmas alone, was crass as fuck

Oh, yes, I know; it was interesting that they didn't fancy making family memories in Grandad's final years in Scarborough or Bournemouth!

I think the big holiday is just one more facet of what a lot of people on this thread (and throughout the country) have been asking about this whole fiasco, though: how much was done with Tom's full knowledge, how much with him giving his blessing/happily going along with it, and/or how much did he not have the faintest idea about or decision in - or maybe even did know and disagreed with?

@hopeishere I see the first two but surely the last isn’t that grey? She write that it would.

They fancied Barbados....

I completely agree.

I think one day in maybe 15-20 years time there will be an epidemic of lawsuits against social media orgs and parents for the invasion of privacy that I just really think will have a massive impact on children later in life. LadBaby kids and both Sam and Billie Faiers kids spring to mind. Using your child as a cash cow and compromising their safety, putting them in uncomfortable situations, risking their friendships, allowing the public at to invade their privacy, everything, because you’re not talented or interesting enough to make money on your own is shit parenting.

@socialdilemmawhattodo I’m local too and agree with you that you absolutely can’t say anything negative about Tony’s parents at all. Only adoration and fawning is acceptable. Tony has no privacy at all.

There’s currently two different Just Giving pages running for the family. Some of those costs are something that the family should be just fund themselves and not to expect the public to stump up.

I agree. He is an inspiring little boy but I also feel uncomfortable, because I think his privacy needs protecting more than the average child (because of the appalling abuse he endured) not less.

It isn't equivalent in my mind to eg little Bradley Lowery who I'm sure got a lot of happiness from his involvement with Sunderland and friendship with Jermaine Defoe, but tragically his time was always likely to be very limited and the only factor in play was his illness, not a traumatic start with abusive (and identifiable) birth parents.

its one thing sharing photos or fund raising for something a disabled child might need.
but his past is used all the time. he will never be free of what is birth parents did.
I do personally think his mum like the publicity.

@Samcro I feel deeply uncomfortable about that case too. Tony's adoptive mother seems to have done a fantastic job in some ways but the relentless publicity doesn't sit right. He's just a child, still primary school age and deserves to have a life that isn't splashed all over the media.

But then it's become so normalised for some parents to post about their children online, even if it's 'just' on fb or insta to anyone in their friends group.... it's awful really. I have a good friend who's so sensible in some ways, a loving caring mum, she's also a teacher so god only knows should be aware of the issues around consent and the risks of posting online, yet she regularly posts photos, and 'witty' stories about things her kids do. No child should be exposed like this. They need to be old enough to give informed consent.

i find the actions of his mum appalling. that poor lad has no privacy. she has been doing it for years. makes me so angry. after all he has been through he deserves privacy.

I think he might have been. My dad would have been well up for it, he was quietly pissed off with me because I didn’t have the stamina to take them on holiday for the last couple of years before he died at 99.

From my experience of being around 99 year olds they don't tend to want to travel further than their living room. Maybe he was exceptional but I really don't think so.

I'm not a fan of the family, but if it really was something he'd long wanted to do - or even just a more recent wish to do one last big special thing with his family - I'm not convinced that it was completely foolhardy.

At 100, he was obviously not long for this world, however cautiously he lived; so maybe they - including him - made the calculated decision that, if this was his last hurrah and he went out with a bang as a direct result, it wasn't that terrible a thing at all?

Not being snarky but why? he was a salesman. Of course he might be innocent but we really dont know. He raised his money grabbing daughter and in his book he was apparently vile about his ex wife. I dont see why he's automatically innocent just because he is old.

People keep talking about how he was "taken" on holiday, it was on his bucket list to go to there, he wanted to go, noone dragged him there against his will.

Pudsey, total cringe. One third of children in the UK now in poverty. I'm not making this up.

It's morally corrupt but it's not fraud according to the legal test set out in the fraud act. For it to be fraud one of the parties entering the contract/agreement must have been lied to and then lost out as a result. Neither the charity or the public were party to that contract. No one has lost - they just haven't gained.

It's a bit crap but I'm sure the charity commission would have gone down this route if they could for the publicity and glory if nothing else.