Well, strip me naked and spank me sideways:

Make time for play, schools urged:

Research for Play England suggests nine out of 10 parents think their children work harder in class if they are given time to play in school hours.

Play England sounds like a nice little earner for some NGO officials with too much time on their hands. Let's see... Play England is part of the National Children's Bureau - a "charity" which receives hefty funding from government departments, including the DCSF and the DoH. Nice.

Really, the whole annual report of the board of management (a nauseating tangle of QuANGOese, groupthink, statist creep and QuasiCorporateJargon™) deserves a darn good fisking, but a quick skim highlights the following gems:

The first of NCB's three main organisational achievements is that it now employs over 220 staff (an increase on 165 a year ago). Whoop!

The first of its overarching targets for the year is to increase the proportion of its long term funding (2-3 years)

A key policy area for NCB, formerly "children's development", is now the semantically questionable "Wellbeing" (presumably in accordance with the government's holy scripture that is Every Child Matters)

You may draw your own conclusions about the NCB's agenda. Now back to the Beeb:

And 88% of parents think they behave better in lessons if they can play at break, according to the poll of 2,067 adults and children.

Gosh! Taking a break from an enforced regime and indulging in free, self-directed activity - possibly of a creative or physical nature - is likely beneficial? Perhaps we ought to be paying the government more money for such insightful research!

The government said it was down to individual schools and councils to see how break times fit in the school day.

How trusting of the government to allow the schools at least some part in the decision making process! The DCSF felt compelled to tell families how to enjoy Christmas safely in an informative leaflet. Is there no "National Guidelines for the Management of School Break Times" policy document up Ed Balls' sleeve?

Nearly three-quarters of children say that school is the main chance they have to play with their friends.

That won't be three-quarters of all children, though, will it? That'll be three-quarters of schooled children. I'd be interested to know what the children who don't go to school have to say about opportunities for play - not, of course, that the government has shown much interest in their view - they are in any case only a mouthpiece for the crazed opinions of their extremist parents.

Some 55% say they sometimes rush their lunch in order to have time to play with their friends.

That's over half of all school children having to rush their government-approved, nutritionally balanced, 5-a-day friendly, omega-enriched, saturated fat-free lunches in order to fit in their government-approved, mentally stimulating, calorie-burning, behaviour-improving play activity!

And 84% of parents are against play times being shortened.

But parents are not the experts...

Play England, which promotes access to free play opportunities, called on schools to protect play time and make more time available for play during the school day.

Well, the "play opportunities" may or may not be free, but the findings of Play England - the play experts - certainly come at a substantial cost.

Director of Play England Adrian Voce said: "The opportunity for children to play at school is all too easily regarded as a luxury. But children, as well as their parents, are telling us how crucial it is."

And not only are the children, as well as their parents, telling us how important play is, play expert Adrian Voce is telling us too! So it must be true! It's a good job Adrian's around to give parents a voice, isn't it?

"We know that playing is an essential part of enjoying childhood and that it contributes hugely to children's informal learning and development. Families are now telling us that it is important in helping children to get the most from their formal learning too."

So, taxpayers, parents - you are paying Adrian Voce to tell you what you told him, namely that play is important, in order that you can then pay him to promote access to free play opportunities to you. Can anyone else see the dead wood here?

But back to stating the bloody obvious elsewhere:

A DCSF spokesman said it was important for children and young people to have the opportunity to play during the school day.

And then onto the obligatory patronising explanation through which runs the golden thread of state education policy:

"Break times allow them to meet with friends, 'let off steam' and return to lessons refreshed and ready to concentrate on their lessons. Our recent Schools White Paper makes it clear that schools need to support pupil wellbeing."

Notice that "wellbeing" word creeping in there again - but it's okay, the DCSF is only thinking of the chiiiildren after all...

The right to play is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) could also be dismissed as dead wood, were it not riddled with opportunities for the state to jeopardise the cohesion of ordinary families. Badman has already attempted to invoke it for his own purposes. If you're in any doubt, then consider these questions:

What does play mean to you? How long does it last for? When does it happen? Do you initiate it? Do you stop it? Does it involve toys? Imagination? Other children? Adults?

Do you think that other parents will answer differently? Does that make them bad parents? For the vast majority of families, who knows best - the parents or the state?

What is the point of having the UNCRC unless it can be used to take action? How can action be taken unless there are definitions attached to the concepts enshrined within it? Who decides on those definitions? 

What recourse do you have when the state sets you up in assumed opposition against your own children? What can you do when your definition of play is not your child's definition of play? What can you do when your definition of play is not the UN's definition of play? What do you do when, in the name of the UNCRC, the state asserts its rights over yours and removes your children - perhaps because you don't buy them toys or because you don't have structured "play time"? Anything is possible - the time for complacency is long gone.

We need no more arbitrary reasons to remove children (who are already protected from actual harm by the law) from decent, loving families. Subjective, ultra vires, interventionist meddling has already resulted in children being removed from families because their parents are too stupid; or dying; because they have high-profile connections  or wanted to see identification from social workers; because they illegally docked the tail of a dog; because they don't speak English and chose to breastfeed; because they made a joke; because their children witnessed arguments.

Simply because organisations claim to operate for the good of children - even if you might agree with some of their activities or proposals - they should not be above scrutiny and criticism. In fact, their very existence should perhaps invite it.