Let's just recap on the top-level failings of this review, shall we?

What we have witnessed is:

A review of home education, launched after several  previous consultations into Home Education in as many years, which apparently did not provide the government with the information it wanted to hear.

A review that was launched as a consultation, and hastily changed to a review after the DCSF was informed that it failed to comply with the government's Code of Practice on consultation.

A review that was precipitated by vocal slurs concerns about child protection issues, which turned out to be wholly unfounded. Yet more evidence here.  

A review whose remit inexplicably expanded to include the consideration of educational provision - completely unrelated to child protection issues, and already sufficiently covered by existing legislation and guidance.

A review, supposedly independent, led by someone whose previous employment history, recent undertakings and current employment indicate a lack of specialist knowledge of elective home education, as well as a potentially serious conflict of interest and pro-formal schooling bias.

A review, supposedly independent, whose "expert" panel was, to a great extent, anything but independent from the government and anything but expert in elective home education.

A review that the Prime Minister does not appear to recognise as in any way problematic or compromising of familiy autonomy and the right to privacy.

A review that has, in many cases, given the none-too-discriminating mainstream media a field day to spew out crowd-pleasing sheeplethink, bias, ignorance and utter nonsense, like this.

A review that is riddled with inconsistencies, ignorance, misleading references and selective quotations, general academic sloppiness and subjectivity. (see here onwards for detailed analysis).

A review whose intellectual rigour has been accepted by Ed Balls.

A review whose recommendations are wholly disproportionate and have serious implications for the civil liberties of all families, not just electively home educating ones.

A review whose recommendations concern many homed educated children as seen here and here.

A review whose recommendations do not concern the Children's Commissioner one little bit. 

A review whose recommendations have been accepted in their entirety by Ed Balls.

A review that was finally published on the same day that a formal consultation was launched by the DCSF.

A review whose recommendations, apparently, require no impact assessment because, according to the unreliably informed Delyth Morgan:

"the proposals are still at an early stage of development. We do not expect them to place any significant additional burdens on local authorities as most already monitor home education, and our proposals will provide additional powers that will assist local authorities in dealing more efficiently with the small number of cases where home education does not come up to scratch. If we decide to proceed with legislation we will publish an impact assessment and will place a copy in the Library of the House."

A review whose recommendations, even prior to the outcome of the consultation which ends in October, can already be found in the draft "Improving Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill" as a clause which reads: "improving monitoring arrangements for children educated at home".

A review that prompted Lord Lucas to seek information from home educators, and then disregard it in favour of tabling an amendment of dangerous compromise. This amendment details a national-level, representative body to influence future policy and legislative development. It is referred to as the Home Education Consultative Committee (HECC, also proposed by Education Otherwise in their "prospectus") - whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State (Ed Balls). See here for why this is a Bad Thing.

A review that ploughs on regardless of what we do or say to those who we believe should listen and act.

(No doubt I've missed something - please add to the comments if so.)

We could have stopped at the top of the list, but having reached the bottom you'll have to excuse my cynicism for anything other than Just Say NO.

• I will not recognise this review and its recommendations as legitimate.
• I will not be playing by the accepted rules if Badman, Balls, et al are not.
• I will not compromise at all - there is no requirement for change.
• I will not be lobbying or taking other action indiscriminately.
• I will prepare my plan for what Just Say NO means in practice, should any of the recommendations come to pass.
• I will share that plan with anybody else who cares to listen.
  

Good luck with whatever you decide to do!