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.

Sorry but what a load of tosh. An open adoption is not a reason to exploit that little boy who has a right to privacy. The whole world knows his about trauma. He had that right to keep that secret, yanked from him for fame. It’s so very wrong and being good people doesn’t give them charge blanche to shit all over his right to privacy.

As someone who has worked in the media I highly doubt they were “hounded day and night”. He’s not Kim Kardashian. And there’s very specific restrictions journalists must work to especially when it comes to children - also they could have said no and the media would have gone away. Hounding may be done for scandal ridden celebrities but feel good stories are ten a penny and they just wouldn’t bother to the extent of hounding. The parents very much courted it by the looks of it.

Don’t you think he has a right to keep his trauma private?

I experienced horrific childhood abuse. I’d be furious if anyone ever dared use the media to tell the world about it. It’s should be MY story to tell and Tony’s should be his to tell

@EvilsElsasPetSnowman this is what I thought, yes our press are low but there is legislation in place to protect children in the media and they must stick to it. His name would never have been published if his adoptive parents hadn't agreed to it.
The poor boy has been through so much and now every person in the country knows his medical history, just awful

Yep. And knowing how utterly cruel kids can be, you can bet your bottom dollar he will be on the receiving end of nasty comments

Not to mention his birth parents can see when and where he is etc?

I think we also need to remember he has extended birth family, who may be good people whose hearts are breaking over what he went through and will have been affected by it immensely. They must have feelings over the fact his adoptive parents have decided to shirk his anonymity

I think it's surprising he's allowed to be so visible. I don't like any of it, it feels exploitative. I don't like the video on the foundation and I don't believe a five year old has any concept of fund raising and how finances work. I've always felt something is off about it all.

I completely agree. I’m really not sure what the social workers involved with him are thinking. Sadly I think he’ll grow up to be a very unhappy, damaged adult.

Once the mother was given an OBE she was probably pretty untouchable - I doubt any social worker wanted to stick their head above the parapet, imagine how they'd be ripped apart in the press.

All these posters with personal experience of the family. What a coincidence 🙄

There won't be any social workers involved with him, why would there be? Once a child is adopted, they would only have social workers involved if the family asked for support and then you wait for months to even get an assessment when you desperately need help. Social workers do not stay involved post adoption, unless at the invitation of the adopters, and have no say in what the parents choose to do.

I am only vaguely aware of this child but it seems an awful decision that his adoptive parents have made. I raise eyebrows at the offspring of ‘influencers’ being used for content/income never mind a child with such a traumatic background.

No child can give informed consent to be on social media. What if they grow up and hate that their whole life is out there? Never mind the more sinister aspects especially with AI these days.

Children, who are victims of crime, have a legal right to anonymity.

Who stripped this child of those rights?

I’ve always thought the whole thing was completly off

I thought it was only me thinking this!

His story is tragic. His adopted parents should be protecting his privacy and letting him have a 'normal' childhood. I get that they be angry on his behalf and want to boost his self-esteem, but they should just let him be a little boy.

I didn't see the recent interview and would rather I had no reason to hear of him again - atleast until he is an adult.

I really wish him well.

It is exploitation , simple as that , also no nurse would have said that to his foster mother . Locally people have commented in the past about his privacy etc but they always get shouted down by his mother’s supporters so I think most people who disagree with her now just keep it to themselves .

Every time there's a story about him it refers very centrally to the horrible facts of how he got his disabilities, and showing pictures of his monstrous birth parents. It feels like he's being defined fully by the abuse he suffered. And almost being forced to be reminded of it constantly as a 'professional career.'

At such a young age it's true I do think it might end up traumatising him all the more.

If he decided he didn't want to do the charity stuff anymore, would his mum just let him quit?
And go on to being a normal lad with a normal education and job? He's already facing so many challenges without endless publicity.

Yes I agree he was too little to decide that's how he wanted to be visibly identified. The foundation page is icky 'he just loves Boris!' Please. What primary kid 'loves' political figures in any meaningful sense.

I can’t actually remember exactly what programme it was on. I was poorly, and idly flicking through the morning drivel while lying on the sofa, so it would have been around the time of Breakfast or Morning Live. Sorry I can’t be more help. I felt very concerned for the poor little chap. He seemed very uncomfortable all through the interview, fidgeting, looking around and clearly bored out of his mind.

We've said this for years and years. It's pure exploitation. It's absolutely none of my business what happened to that boy, yet I know all about it and I absolutely shouldn't- the poor child has no possibility of leaving his history behind him as its constantly paraded as the most important, interesting thing about him and its not right.

I came here looking for this.
I understand how having his face on the campaign raises awareness and money. The red flags for me, is seeing Paula his adoptive mum, on our tvs every few months.
Its just a bit too much. Im sure initially she had good intentions, but it just feels to me like she can't keep away from media attention.