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.

She's been asked to explain her actions, and she's explained. It would have been impossible for her to have done so without including the reason for the trust.

Basically she can't win. If she hadn't fully explained, she'd be 'hiding something'. Now she has and 'she's using her child for sympathy'

I didn’t know she had a disabled child OP, but it wouldn’t have made any difference to my opinion. If she is scamming the state with her dodgy dealings then that’s just wrong, whatever her situation is. And actually, having a disabled child should make her more conscious of the struggles faced by parents of disabled children. It shouldn’t make her want to steal government money to line her own pockets. She’s already considerably better off than most parents of children with additional needs I imagine.

i would normally agree with you if he hadn't used his situation to shut down debate.

No one has a problem with her protecting the privacy of her child. The issue is that she underpaid Stamp Duty to the tune of 40k. If ‘she’ cannot organise her taxes then she shouldn’t be in the job; she’s either incompetent, dishonest or both. It will be interesting to see if she will name who gave her this bad financial advice. Her lawyers are already distancing themselves saying they acted in good faith using the information they were given.

I have an autistic boy with a physical disability who was born early. I’ve fought and fought for him. The likes of rayner wanted VAT on the private school fees for kids like him. We had to go to a private school 10’miles away to get significant help for him. The likes of Rayner gave no shits about slapping VAT on school fees and affecting kids like mine. So I’m not really sure why I should feel any sympathy towards her ds and stamp duty. It’s always the same with these socialists - they think their personal situations are different for some reason and they don’t need to abide by their socialist principles, but we do need to. See also Starmer as a raging socialist (even aged 16) going to sixth form at his private school. Because it turned private. IF his principles were socialist, then he should have attended a different state sixth form. But as always, socialists have excuses for not following the shit they force on the rest of us. See also Reeves being bussed to a lovely all girls secondary that her 2xteacher parents had hand picked. Both Starmer and Reeves studied at Oxford as a direct result of attending very good schools. But pretend they are Joe average at the local shitty comp. Well nobody at our local comp has ever been to Oxford.

We all want to ensure our children are protected throughout their lives. It’s really not unique to self righteous, narcissistic, hypocritical deputy prime ministers.

100% this.

Didn't she sell the house to her son's trust fund though? Then used the proceeds towards the other place?
On another thread somebody posted tax rules from the Gov website which stated that if a property is given to under 18s it would still legally be considered the parents. I can't imagine whoever she consulted wasn't aware of that.
I don't fully understand it all as I don't play with big money however, it's not my role to understand it. It is literally her job.

I began the day with a lot of sympathy for her. I have disabled children myself and I understand the urge to protect them forever. However, the more this has played out it's clear to me she's lying. If this was genuine she would be sueing her "advisors" and screaming from the rooftops.

It's such a shame as she seemed like a people's politician but it looks like she's succumbed to the perks of the job far too easily and quickly unfortunately. I was a bit sickened over her her right to buy changes when she'd profited off that personally.

it's irrelevant

She tried to lie her way out of paying tax

if anyone else with a disabled child tried that - what do you think would happen?

Most people of a child with disabilities can't put a house in trust for them a buy a second home though, maybe that's the stinger? Whilst other parents of children with disabilities have to fight tooth and nail for suitable school placements and often live in inadequate housing, not able to hold down a job due to their childs needs, whilst politicians sit pretty.

I agree the children should be afforded their privacy.

Was it in her disabled child's best interests to buy (from trust fund) 25% of the Ashton under Lynne house for £162,500 to enable her to use this as a deposit on her Hove house?

Her credibility is falling like a deck of cards.

And the trust bought the house at double the value than others listed. It may have had adaptations but this is low.

She knew she was in trouble so then she used her child. Disgusting. Her personal situation is not complex. It is whatever it needs to be to make money from us.

Their children should be protected from the public gaze for sure.

But she's in a position where she can influence policy which would make it simple, safe and legal for all parents of all children - disabled or otherwise - to ensure their children are provided for in the future.

Instead of using her wealth and influence to do it she should highlight it and help to change policy.