Thanks to Mr Eugenides for bringing this to my attention - this post is shameless regurgitation but it's undoubtedly for the greater good.

He highlights Fraser Nelson's account of what happened when he put up a post at the Spectator,

"[correctly] accusing the increasingly disgraceful Ed Balls of lying about debt and public spending on this morning's Today programme."

(The interview is also discussed here). As Mr Eugenides goes on to say,

"Would that more journalists were willing to go on record with tales of bullying phone calls from shouting ministers.

"Fraser's dogged pursuit of Brown's [and Balls'] Big Lie on the public finances over the past couple of months has at times verged on the heroic. As he notes in his post (once Balls has slammed the phone down)" -

'If you're reading this, Ed (and I suspect you will be) then we have a serious point to make. Five years ago, you could lie like this on the radio and get away with it. Space is tight in newspapers, no one would devote hundreds of words and graphs - as we did - to expose a lie for what is. But the world has changed now. Blogging has brought new, hyper scrutiny. Blogs have infinite space, and people with endless energy, to expose political lying - no matter how small. Your claims can be instantly counter-checked, by anyone. If you stretch the truth, you can be exposed - by anyone. And if you plan to base a whole election campaign on a lie, as you apparently intend to do, then you're in for a rude awakening.'

Yep - infinite space, people with endless energy - I can see it everywhere around me as a vast community of disparate people (which is growing by the day) continues to challenge and discredit the contradictory, offensive nonsense that spews forth from Balls, Badman, Brown et al. They aren't going to win.

(Let us not, however, take our eyes off this kind of questionable activity in the meantime: what's described above is the real reason the government is so keen to regulate the internet).

Ed Balls - desperate to rule his brave new world of children, schools and families, even as it crumbles to dust.

1. If school educated children truant, then parents can be fined and/or receive a custodial sentence.
2. But if parents choose to educate their children at home and fail to please their local authority, Balls wants their children to be ordered to attend school.
3. And then if school educated children misbehave, Balls wants their parents to be hauled before the courts and served with parenting orders.
4. And finally, if the parenting classes, counselling sessions, curfews and arbitrary socialisation rules don't improve the child's behaviour in school, Balls wants the parent to be fined up to £1000.
5. Return to 1 and go to jail.

Don't assume that only a certain kind of child truants.

Don't assume that the local authority is automatically an expert in home education (or any education, for that matter).

Don't assume that only a certain kind of child behaves in a manner unacceptable to the school, or that only a certain kind of parent with be hauled in front of the courts.

Don't assume that a parenting class or counselling session won't make you and your child the problem to be dealt with. 

Don't assume that a curfew, arbirtrary socialisation rules and fines will simply stop a child from behaving in a manner unacceptable to the school.

Don't assume that Ed Balls won't criminalise you or send you to jail:

"But heads tell me that not all parents are willing to co-operate. And when pupils and parents break the agreement, it's hard to enforce it. That has to change. There must be real consequences for those parents who don't take their responsibilities seriously." 

Well now I am telling you, Balls, that I am not willing to co-operate. My child is not going to school unless she chooses, and therefore I, not the local authority, will take responsibility for her education. If you ever manage to send her to school against my will, which I very much doubt, I will break any agreement that I do not believe to be in her best interests. It will be impossible to enforce. It will not change. And yes, there must be real consequences for those parents who don't take their responsibilities seriously. But my parental responsibilities are to my child - not to you, not to a headmaster, and not to a school. 

Bullying by peers; bullying by teachers; sexual abuse by peers; sexual abuse by teachers; special educational or other needs woefully misunderstood and unmet; national curriculum insufficient, unstimulating and often questionable; personal learning opportunites and passions regularly neglected; children treated as vessels to be filled with knowledge to be regurgitated rather than intelligent human beings capable of rational, critical and original thought; inappropriate socialisation in a singularly artificial environment; personal responsibility removed in favour of unquestioning compliance with rules and hierarchy; lack of engagement with the wider community; little opportunity to foster inter-generational relationships; alarming trend of school taking over primary parental responsibilities...

Just a few possibilities that could cause a child to truant or behave in a manner unacceptable to the school. It's not just a certain kind of child. It's my child, and your child.

Let's see what tomorrow's white paper brings.

PanopticanUK comments here.

Thanks to Debs and Grit for restoring my mojo. 

A 20 month old? Out in the garden at 9pm? In dirty, too-small clothes? And - she ate some paint - before I could stop her! Call Delyth!

(Got some catching up to do, but will be back with you very soon...)