Do high profile public figures often shield their disabled children for the media glare?

[mids2019]

With Angela Raynor's current troubles I wonder to what extent the public may have been more sympathetic if there was more of a knowledge why she had placed a house in trust (for her disabled child) and how she had struggled as all parents of disabled children must?

I feel that part of her current woes was a result of her quite rightly not wanting to push her family into the limelight but I wonder in this case whether letting a little light into her life for the media would have made her a more defensible figure? David Cameron spans a very disabled child and I think in general the public were empathetic even if they disagreed with his policies.

I think your child has a right to privacy so while she might have seemed more empathetic to people in her position, I'm not sure she should use her child to help her career in that way. David didn't give a shit about anything like that. He would use whatever he could, whenever he could. It could be that she's choosing otherwise.

I agree but her financial mess was partly wanting to ensure her child was protected presumably through the rest of his life. I don't know if the public were aware of premature birth etc. but maybe this would have given a new perspective to the stamp duty problem. It must be difficult to know how much publicity to give to your children when you are in a high profile position.

Everyone should shield their child from the gaze of the media. I think less of David Cameron for the way he trotted the death if his son to support his political career. I’m not saying he doesn’t have talked about his deeply personal story but he used it for personal gain.

Doesn't it make you look more human though? The royal family don't have a choice about publicity for their children to a large extent....

That’s the point. They should put their children’s privacy before supporting their public political career. Lots of people will think differently but this is my personl opinion.

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong stance on this. It can bring positivity to charities, highlight causes and makes them more relatable. It’s personal to the parents though.

So the less choice you have, the more robust you'd be over what you can protect

I have more respect for the fact she didn’t share this information tbh.

I'm with every MP who chooses to keep their children out of the spotlight, be they disabled or able bodied. The exception is when they do not acknowledge any of their children, such as Boris Johnson going to court to try to stop it being public knowledge about one of his children.

I agree with the right to privacy and I have some sympathy that a mother's attempt to ensure the future welfare of her child has lead to a political dsaster.

I think it’s a good thing that politicians’ children are kept completely out of it now. This is actually a big change in the last decade, a good one. I don’t think the children should be used to ‘humanise’ politicians, and it’s one thing I think the politicians in the last few years have done right. I should think growing up in the limelight had very negative impacts on the Blair children.

That said I agree some basic info would have helped give context to this mess. Not having this mess in the first place would have been much better.

Most people want to keep their children private, I'm not sure it's even to do with the disability (although that would certainly increase my desire to keep them out of the news). How many politicians' children do you know about?

It's entirely reasonable for her to protect her child. From what I've read it sounds like she's had bad financial advice in a complicated situation, rather than deliberately trying to avoid tax. (That said, I think in her position I would be quadruple-checking that I didn't need to pay.)

I think she is using the child for her own gain. She risked her job for £40 k.

And I don't think one set of politicians are better than others. She listened to the advice that allowed her to keep the money. She has been vulgar in the past to other politicians.

And other politicians eg Gordon Brown worked for charities that meant to them.

Nah. She needs to go but she shouldn't have been there in the first place in that role.

Angela Rayners child is nobodys business their medical condition isn't up for discussion imo is private, she took bad advice about the second home thing or maybe just didn't understand it but using her child for sympathy isn't the way to go about things.

she is right to keep her child private. its a shame its all gone wrong for her, but her Childs privacy is their right. David Cameron used his experience to shut down debate.

I didn't know that she had a child, disabled or otherwise. And it does make it appear more acceptable as opposed to just having her nose in the trough like previous politicians.

I totally understand what’s it’s like to have a disabled child especially the constant worry over how they will be cared for when you no longer can and on that front I empathise with her.

But government ministers can’t unlawfully dodge stamp duty or any other tax that they as a member of government impose on the general population. It’s simply not acceptable. Especially when they are much better off than many many people who have limited choices and limited income because of their caring responsibilities.

So no I wouldn’t have been more sympathetic to her over this and no I don’t think she should use her child to further her political career.

Actually the child should have more privacy, not used to garner sympathy over keeping her job.

This

That’s not what’s happened though. Unless you are saying she didn’t disclose any of this to her solicitor/tax advisor when they set up the trust. It’s not her attempt to ensure the child’s welfare that’s got her in trouble it’s the issue with the tax.

You can’t be in that role and “not understand” stamp duty.

Personally I think it is good choldren aren't used in politics the why the Blair and Cameron children were.

And I dont think having a disabled child makes it okay to avoid tax. I have sympathy of course but it doesn't excuse or justify tax evasion.

Only on MN can a parent be critical for publicly mourning the loss of a child in order to try to defend a tax dodger.

Questions now being asked about how she has used her compensation.

They are all as bad as each other but side swiping at the Cameron's after they lost a child is, in my opinion seriously low behaviour.

I wasn't talking about Stamp duty i am sure she understands Stamp duty.