So, the OP has said both that the bonus pays for private school otherwise we wouldn’t afford it so easily. And then she says, We do choose to pay for private schools etc but it’s planned and budgeted and we go without in other places as the children’s schooling is a high priority for us a family. All families have their priorities and they vary but that is ours for various reasons.
So first of all, which is it? And second of all, if the OP couldn't afford private school, or couldn't afford to live in the catchment of a great state school, and many people can't, does that make her someone who prioritises her children's education more than the person who can't? No, it just makes her someone who can pay for it. We sent our three to private because we wanted to, could afford it and it fit in with our lives. Does that make me a superior parent to my friends who couldn't or didn't? No, again.
I'll also add that it's risky to rely on a bonus for your DC's schooling. Bonuses, by nature, vary, and if the firm has a bad year, or your hours are down, poof.
You're more than welcome to believe whatever you like, including that I'm not a lawyer. Although I've never done criminal law, so you're way off there on victims and criminals (although I no longer practice law at all). Corporate disputes run a little drier than that.
And unlike the OP, I didn't assume the people reading this were so dim or uneducated or gullible that l would need to talk down to them in terms I thought they would understand, like saying barrister when I meant something completely different.