Tony Hudgell concerns

[Ilikeadrink14]

Am I being unreasonable for having doubts about Tony Hudgell and, in particular, his mother? He isn’t allowed to be a little boy any more and has been moulded into a money machine, albeit for charity. In addition, all this publicity and faux admiration is fast turning him into a rather dislikable child, and that is sad. On tv yesterday, he was being interviewed but kept trying to get hints about what to say from his mother, and looked very uncomfortable one minute, and full-of-himself and rather supercilious the next. His words didn’t seem to be his.

I really think they should’ve changed his name and kept him out of the limelight. Poor lad has been through enough. I say that as an adoptive mum myself too

Absolutely. He should have been allowed a private life.

I saw this and unfortunately agree with you. It was very uncomfortable to watch.

Yes I agree.

I hadn't heard of him so just googled him. Well he has certainly been in the media a lot over the last few tears. I agree that he would probably benefit from not being in the spotlight and having his sad history constantly brought up.

I was thinking exactly the same when I saw him being interviewed on BBC Breakfast this week. Someone has drummed up yet another charity scheme for him and he couldn't have looked less interested. Seemed bewildered, in fact.
Poor kid, on the money making treadmill / hoopla.
He was fiddling with something in his hands and I just thought please let him be. Let him have some downtime.

It's absolutely appalling that he has been forced into the spotlight after suffering unimaginable cruelty, his adoptive parents seem determined to cash in. Surely there should be rules against this to protect a very vulnerable child?

I googled as well and lasted about thirty seconds on a youtube video. I just can't. It's seems like exploitation to me.

I think it's awful too.

What seems particularly odd and jarring to me are the early interviews with his adoptive parents, of which there are several. They were blurred out or videoed only from behind, to protect the child's identity.

Then one day, bam, everything changed and the child and parents were in the media in full spotlight.

I wonder what changed or how it changed. Did the adoptive parents approach the media? Did the media approach them? And why? Why make such a spectacle of the child? It's just sad, as if his start wasn't bad enough.

I truly hope this doesn't turn out to be reminiscent of the Captain Tom debacle with his family but honestly, it feels similar to me. I bet there's some Charity Commission investigator somewhere with his eye firmly on those parents.

I was thinking of him when that terrible case of the child that was kept hidden in a drawer was in the news this week. The child has been fostered, and will hopefully be adopted, but the mother wasn't allowed to be named, to protect the children. How come this doesn't apply in this case? Why is everyone allowed to know who he is, and the awful things that were done to him? Why can't he live peacefully as is his right?

I wondered this too. I thought it was the case that an abused child would always have their identity protected, but clearly not.

And it does have echoes of Captain Tom in that a vulnerable person is being paraded for publicity with little regard for their wellbeing.

He didn't seem to want to talk on tv the other day.
I wondered why he was called Tony as that was his birth fathers name.
I wondered what the parents think seeing him on tv, knowing what they did to him. Pair of sickos.

Can't someone have a word with her.
She easily contactable on Twitter.

Abused by his birth parents
Exploited by his adoptive parents

Social services should have intervened years ago but I think this falls into the same grey area as influencers exploiting their children online.

Honestly we need to update the laws around child privacy/exploitation in light of modern media. It's essentially child labour.

At least Captain Tom could speak up for himself. There's nothing to suggest he was manipulated or forced into any of his family's scam. Tony was literally a baby when they started taking advantage of him and it's getting worse. Doesn't he have a social worker that's supposed to look out for him?

I’d say you don’t know enough about that poor child and his amazing adoptive family. I know someone who knows them personally and his adoptive mother fought tooth and nail for his birth parents to actually revive the sentence they did. She was his foster mother and when that poor little mite was in hospital having his limbs amputated one of the nurses said no one will want him and his mum said, I do. And she adopted him. She gives him a wonderful life and believe me, Tony wants to do this - it’s what he wants to do. You really should not speculate about things you can only guess about

He isn't old enough to consent to this and he certainly wasn't when he was younger

"his amazing adoptive family. I know someone who knows them personally and his adoptive mother fought tooth and nail for his birth parents to actually revive the sentence they did. She was his foster mother and when that poor little mite was in hospital having his limbs amputated one of the nurses said no one will want him and his mum said, I do. And she adopted him."

@FlamingoFloss But so what? Now she gets to destroy any privacy he is entitled to? Love isn't enough.

So you know someone who knows them ?
That's not really having personal knowledge of how he feels is it ?

I have always felt that it is wrong that the little lad has no privacy. I am surprised that there are not rules against adoptive parents doing this.
he is too young to decide for himself, his mum just keeps on exploiting him. she might have good intentions, but one day he is going to realise how exploited he was. all the awards in the world won't change that.

None of that is anywhere near an excuse to expose all his personal information to the world without his consent, and to exploit him for attention.
He doesn't owe his adoptive parents anything.

Exactly.
Really easy to say a toddler or young child desperately wants to do something - your job as a parent is supposed to be protecting them until they can understand the consequences.

Will the BBC (assuming it's the BBC he's been on again) have done a safeguarding exercise before the broadcast?

No way could a child of that age has said, "yes, reveal my identity to everyone, and let everyone know what vile abusive things my birth parent did to me, and let me be in the public eye for the rest of my childhood, I totally understand all the implications that will be there for the rest of my life"

It's exploitation, pure and simple.

Tony birth mother was let out and had a fling with a sex offender.
She's now back inside, proves how scummy these people are.