AOG - "If you have read the story, perhaps you missed this passage.....
*** Mr Welch, 39, said: ‘I was disgusted when I found out and my wife was seething. We knew nothing about this and don’t want the image of our children to be used for Conservative propaganda. ***
That is what I was referring to, nothing more sinister than just asking a question."
Indeed I did miss that part through skimmed reading - and I saw nothing at all sinister in your question, merely that you were raising a debate subject, as is standard for this section.
"/// I would feel aggrieved if a member of my family innocently appeared to offer endoresement of a politician who did not enjoy my support - so I understand the ire of the parents. ///
In this it would appear that you seem as over sensitive as the parents, it was a simple Christmas card illustrated by some hardly recognisable children sledging, it was not an illustration on a voting pamphlet"
I don't agree that they are being over-sensitive.
It's not a 'simple Christmas card' - it is an official Crhistmas card distributed by a Tory counsellor, and from the parents' reaction, it is clear that the image of their children is identifiable, otherwise recipients would be unaware of the childrens' names, and so would not be wondering about their parents' political affiliations - which is the point of their upset.
If the ouncellor wants to include local children on his official Christmas cards, he has the option of photographing his own, if he has them, or a wiling friend, relative, or council supporter's children, which will cause no issue.
I appreciate that his action was thoughtless rather than malicious, but the consequences remain the same, regardless of the origin.