There is a huge amount of information and commentary out there at the moment: It's helpful to me to pull as much together as possible prior to the inevitable postmortem that will follow Graham Badman's report into elective home education and his recommendations.

Things kicked off towards the end of this week with this Guardian blog post on the future of home education.

There was also this delightful Guardian article, citing a "source close the review" disclosing that Graham Badman is looking favourably on increased regulation of home educators. 

Meanwhile, the Khyra Ishaq trial continues, and the cynical amongst us suspect that the public release of those recommendations have been tied to coincide with it. Mainstream media reports have appeared to demonstrate a continual reframing of key facts that erroneously link Khrya's supposed status as a "home educated" child with her abuse and eventual death.  

Carlotta talks more about the oh-so-handy timing of Graham Badman's review into elective home education here, with reference to the introduction of ContactPoint, the publication of new Guidance on Children Missing Education, and the commissioning of research into safeguarding and welfare by the DCSF.

Recently, of course, Graham Badman led the case review into Baby Peter's death. His findings here erred towards the totalitarian - which is not a good sign of things to come:

• Services are responsible for "effecting improvement in parents"
• It is less harmful for a child to be incorrectly removed from an innocent family than for a child to remain in an abusive family
• Professionals should be more deeply sceptical of parents
• If professionals have any doubt they should act more swiftly and decisively

However, for more information about the Baby Peter case that Lord Laming et al would probably prefer you didn't know about, read this. Blogdial comments on it, and offers clear and reasoned argument against ContactPoint, here.

Graham Badman also appears to be fully supportive of witholding information regarding legislation and rights from people to mislead them, if he believes there a reason for so doing.

And the delightful Baroness Morgan, whose comments about child abuse paved the way for this nonsense review into elective home education, has decided that yet another review for those hard-done-by reality talent show children is in order. But don't worry, taxpayers, it's for the chiiiildren.

Finally, the NSPCC made an apology of sorts for the slurs made by their Policy Adviser, Vijay Patel. As with Delyth Morgan, Vijay causally linked home education and child abuse, but ruthlessly took advantage of the memory of Victoria Climbie in the process. The apology was only issued to Education Otherwise, who as we know don't represent all home educators, and it was more of a whisper than a shout from the rooftops. So we will just have to do that ourselves.  

These machinations are all taking place against a backdrop of widespread political immorality and general government breakdown.

Gordon Brown is desperate to prove his mettle and remain in power. No doubt he will continue making wild and grandiose promises to the sheeple ("Here's more money/services/protection - now hand over your very soul!").

Ed Balls has been blocked from taking his presumed place as Chancellor. He's got to channel his hunger for power somehow and the hasty passing of this Bill is likely to threaten the civil liberties of everyone, not just home educators as this article explains.

So, what do the other bloggers and commenters have to say?

Well, despite the much-needed representations made by Lord Lucas in relation to home educators and the Bill above, concerns have been expressed about his apparent acceptance of a national, strategic home education committee (of the type recommended by Education Otherwise) representing the interest all elective home educators. The friendly and welcoming Home Ed Forums is running a poll on this very subject here - feel free to mosey on over.

Firebird gave a very clear message to Graham Badman here, and followed up with a very detailed, step-by-step critique of his likely recommendations. She has done sterling work highlighting the implications for all parents on the Netmums forum, particularly in relation to compulsory registration at birth, which was mooted by the anonymous source in the aforementioned Guardian article. Despite the initially disappointing responses from other commenters ("Well I don't see the problem with compulsory registration if it protects all children") others have since stepped into the fray to deconstruct some of the less rational reactions.

Carlotta comments on the same article, and what she says about any such recommendations leading to a "monumental constitutional shift" is something that I particularly agree with, as does Danae of Three Degrees of Freedom in her comment here. 

Bishop Hill also offers his perspective. He's done a little digging to reveal that the champion of children's rights, Jacqui Newvell (whose comments in the article have prompted some indignation) is actually speaking on behalf of a fake charity - The National Children's Bureau. Can anyone see a pattern emerging amongst those "independent" organisations who are desperate to have their say in how to monitor and regulate support us?

Gill has returned from a little time away - hello! - and shares her excellent thoughts on what has developed in her absence.

On Aspie Home-Education, the "solution" offered by the Guardian blog post is picked up on - emigration. Having researched this in a little detail, it's alarming how difficult it is to find somewhere to live and educate in genuine freedom. It appears that many, however, are already considering Scotland. (That's our plan, too.)

Shirl talks about what has cropped up in the Guardian here, and you get some Manics, too. 

Wonderfully pragmatic, Mum6kids does a spot of fisking here, which I very much enjoyed. Particularly in relation to the bizarrely out-of-touch Andy Winton, chair of the National Association of Social Workers in Education, who made the extraordinary claim that "school is a good safety net to protect children". I would like some real evidence of that, I think.

Jax has commented on the Bill here, specifically in relation to the possible home education committee. She also covers the Guardian article here. 

Even Grit, whose function is ordinarily to make me guffaw with glee (and contemplate the delights of older children) got me worried for a moment or two. But then it was all OK. Phew!

And finally, Alexander published this letter to all parents in the comments section on my blog yesterday. It's well worth a read, and the sentiment behind it has been expressed on a couple of the home ed groups over the past few days. The option to say just say NO is there, however you choose to do it, and whether or not you home educate. There will be others doing the same thing, believe me.

Thanks to all the bloggers I subscribe to, wonderfully articulate people on circulation lists, and my little group of friends on Facebook for keeping me up to date with the mountain of information they so kindly share. And additional thanks to Debs and others on Twitter who do similar. Regardless of what people such as Susan Greenfield say, such social networking and information sharing applications are invaluable in linking many of us together for very productive and positive purposes. Please let me know if I have missed anything or anyone out: I have almost certainly done so, so my apologies in advance. And thanks!