It's the only sensible and logical reaction to the irrational words that are being bandied about by biased experts who believe that we should be dancing to their tune, or else. Words that, if heeded, will have an unthinkable impact on the ways in which families desire to educate - and indeed parent - their children.

These self-professed experts - in education, risk management, and the lives of other people - are starting from an presumption of guilt; a belief in the very worst of people - and they are demanding that action be taken against all, because they say so, in order that a theoretical, tiny minority might possibly be detected.

We have Graham Badman, shutting a valuable community school against the wishes of that community; instructing officials to mislead academies with regard to their rights; imploring the select committee to take note of the fact that some local authorities don't know what they don't know - a perfectly desirable situation he nonetheless uses to justify the gross, preemptive intrusions into the lives of countless families as per his recommendations. The appropriateness of a local authority having strictly limited information regarding the citizens it exists to serve does not seem to register in Graham Badman's strangely vacant, one-track mind.

We have people like this man, who has emerged from the local authority woodwork as a consultant to tell us that:

Teachers should be “thinking the unthinkable” and planning for another school attack in the UK, according to those who dealt with the aftermath of the Dunblane Primary shooting.

Alastair Sinclair was chief emergency planning officer for Stirling Council in 1996 when a lone gunman went on the rampage in a primary school. Although Britain has not suffered a similar school shooting in the past 13 years, Mr Sinclair said he believed that changes in society, and the increased threat of terrorism, meant it was a case of “when and not if” children and staff would be targeted again.

And we have people like this giving evidence to the select committee:

I cannot see any possible objection to it [registration for parents], personally. Actually, my daughter went missing because she was born in one local authority area but we moved to another when she was six. Nobody had any idea of whether she was at school and, when we moved, nobody knew what happened to her. I could have done her in and buried her in the garden in Tottenham, and then moved to Loughton and no one would have been any the wiser. She had no official existence in effect, so no, I cannot see any possible objection to a registration scheme."

Well, local authorities work far better not knowing what does not immediately spring to their attention. Teachers should be equipped to deal with reality, not flights of horrific fantasy, and we should not be approaching every parent/child relationship on the assumption that murder is in the offing. These ignorant attitudes make it oh-so-easy for Ofsted to recommend that parents be CRB checked so that the real experts are assured of their safety to be alone with their own children if they are pathological enough to choose to spend their days with them. Parents such as Elizabeth:

The governments official Office for the Standards in Education, Child Services and Skills has suggested, very seriously, that ALL PARENTS and STEP-PARENTS have a CRB check if they are going to home educate their children.  Not strangers children, but their very own flesh and blood. They are seriously stating—that for me to be able to be with my children Monday through Friday from 9 am – 3 pm, I would need to have a Criminal Records Bureau check.  

How insane is that?

What does the government not understand about parents and children?  How pathetic are their lives if they cannot understand that most parents will do anything they possibly can to protect their children from harm?

We are not home educating our children to harm them.  We do this to give them the best start in life we can.

And despite tired government rhetoric about the voice of the child, Penny Jones from the DCSF can then use her position of authority and the might of the government in an attempt to silence intelligent young people claiming their freedom from uninvited intervention:

YOUNG PERSON 1: I want to read you a section of annex C: “The review will look in particular at if and how far home educated children have access to the five Every Child Matters outcomes.”

PENNY JONES: Ahh, I see, okay.

YOUNG PERSON 2: I don’t want them.

PENNY JONES: Well, want or not, I am a government official, and these five outcomes are government policy.

Then someone who is preparing to assume the role of Children's Commissioner can treat the people who pay her salary and ask reasonable questions regarding her professional conduct with utter contempt:

Thankyou for this message. As I do not take up the post of Children's Commissioner until 1st March 2010 having formally been confirmed in the appointment last week, I have referred this commentary and your offer of a meeting to staff at 11 Milion for reference and any action. I note, but have no intention of responding now or in future to, your commentary on either your dismay, or what in your personal opinion are my shortcomings.

Staffordshire County Council Children's Services will be happy to make a decent man's life hell when he assumes parental responsibility for his deceased sister's child:

The contact we have had with the EHE co-ordinator, Olaf Hindmarsh, and the Local Authority since then has been frightening. They have misquoted and misinterpreted sections of the Education Act, admitted to not having a clear understanding of the current legislation and guidelines, claimed to have more powers than they in fact have, implied we might be abusing Adrian and threatened us with a School Attendance Order if we did not agree to their unlawful demand for termly reports. There has been huge inconsistency in what Mr Hindmarsh has said and what he has done. The actions of the Local Authority have caused no small amount of upset and distress to our family.

Not to mention the lives of these people (the veracity of whose claims I cannot vouch for directly.)

And a caring mother with concerns about the health of her daughter will find herself under investigation:

The doctor sent round a health visitor, who came 3 times and seemed to be asking evaluation questions. It wasn’t particularly helpful but she had some ideas and thoughts and she was nice enough to chat to. On the third visit she told me she had been assessing me for Münchhausen’s By Proxy but it was fine, i didn’t have it. I was flabbergasted – but not nearly as scared as i should have been. It makes my blood run cold and perhaps it isn’t sensible even to mention it. But i hope if this blog is a record of anything, it is that we care deeply about our children here and their welfare and well being is paramount. We are not perfect, but they are the very centre of our lives. And if i could have this levelled at me, then so could any other perfectly ordinary mum.

I got investigated for being mentally ill with a desire to get attention by harming or inventing illnesses for my child BECAUSE i fulfilled my duty as a parent and sought medical help for one of them when i feared there was something wrong that i could not deal with alone.

At every level within the public structures we pay for, these dreadful automatons exist. So convinced of their own importance; so certain of their superhuman skills of judgement; so sure of the necessity of their professional existence. Never questioning whether the problems they are so intent on tackling even exist. Yes, they nod, we are borg.

And what happens to the insiders who tell the truth? The professionals who threaten to topple the very structure of which they are part? The structure topples them first, of course:

There fell David Nutt:

Alan Johnson has sacked the government’s chief drugs adviser, Professor David Nutt, after he pointed out that ministers ignored the scientific evidence of their own advisers when they reclassified cannabis from Class C to Class B.

Last night Professor Nutt said that, in the 40 years of the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Gordon Brown’s government was the first to have ignored its advice. It’s also the first time the ACMD chairman has been sacked.

The professor said: “I’m not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I think most scientists will see this as a further example of the Luddite attitude of this government, and possible future governments, towards science.”

I had a little tumble or two of my own, before I realised that you really shouldn't have been paying for me to work for you at all - and I walked out.

And, if they are not driven to take long-term sick leave, this is what the very best of our teachers face:

Perhaps this is the saddest change of all- the development of quislings. A network of colleagues, eager to to progress in a new apparatchik, will quickly run to the boss to report dissent. The result is that those with independent professional standards who are by no means disloyal, are called into the office of the headteacher and threatened with the sack or told to fall in line with immediate effect.

The results are obvious. The independent, free-spirited, intelligent and thoughtful colleagues who wish to place children at the centre of the educational process regardless of ability are bullied and are starting to leave, even in a recession. Some have gone to private education, others have simply left teaching altogether.

But this post is about hope, and there is an abundance of it to draw from. It's no longer simply about the odd insider with integrity who is being chewed and spat out. The people upon whom these structures feed are well and truly rattled. They are shocked by the depths to which these automatons are plumbing. They understand that we are paying for the privilege of being used and abused by the politicians and public officials who should rightfully be serving us. Despite what experts like Graham Badman would like us to think, it is not just a vociferous minority that is well and truly pissed off with this incessant meddling and continual erosion of our ancient freedoms. 

Bloggers have been saying it for some time now. My Google Alert for "Ed Balls", for example, shows it daily. The most cursory examination of the mainstream media - even the Guardian for goodness' sake - confirms it. Large swathes of the population are making their objections known loud and clear. The expenses scandal; the vetting and barring scheme; the downright refusal to listen to anything of any importance whatsoever - all of this has generated a significant mass of people who are prepared to say NO. Rational, sensible people who are advocating civil disobedience rather than submitting to immoral and frankly pathetic rules and regulations that threaten to cause great harm to the individual, to families and to our communities.

These right-minded individuals will simply say NO to whatever it is they deem unreasonable, thus removing themselves completely from the rotten carcass of meaningless bureaucracy that has been created by a greedy and power-obsessed government. If they are sufficient in numbers - and it is becoming apparent that they are - all that will remain is a teetering skeleton of pointless civil servants, questionable experts and washed up politicians, loosely held together by wisps of policy, procedure and protocol - the entirety of which will rapidly disintegrate and turn to dust before our eyes. Freedom is, above all else, a state of mind:

Withdrawing consent for such interference is not simply a matter of saying No in consultations and letters, it is a matter of doing No. It is a committment to moving to self-responsibilty and self-reliance. Self-sufficiency is a state of mind, not a vegetable plot and a goat. It is not the Good Life, rather it is deeply subversive - because we will only continue to consent to the State for as long as we continue to need the State....

...Saying NO is a revolutionary act. Saying NO means taking personal responsibilty, it means losing one's sense of entitlement, it means withdrawing both our explict consent and the consent that is implied when we expect Govt to do things on our behalf. It doesn't mean only those with the means to go out now and be self-sufficient in food, energy, water, shelter and healthcare can say No because first of all it is about changing one's mind. It means changing one's mind about whose responsibilty it is to provide for our needs and those of our children, and it means becoming convinced that it is no-one's responsibilty but our own. Working out one's self responsibilty in terms of practical day to day living will look different for everyone and will proceed at a different pace for everyone. That is unimportant. The important thing is the acceptance of responsibilty.

And when considering this, what is more compelling than fighting on behalf for the freedom of one's children? As Danae says, whoever cares the most, wins:

Wherever the wave of probability is now it will break in our favour. Whichever lever must push forward to reinstate and, in fact, make home education grow exponentially is being thrust forward now. Our momentum is unstoppable. We are the force of nature that no mere weak and puny men can oppose.

Especially when even people across the Atlantic can see the grim alternative:

Who gets to be a parent? That’s where this is heading. If the state can say that you must have a CRB check before you can take responsibility for your own child in daylight hours, and the state can tell you, “no, you aren’t a suitable person to educate your children,” then it is just one short leap to, “you aren’t a suitable person to be a parent.” What will come next? Enforced adoption for children with suspect parents? Enforced sterilization of those deemed unfit to reproduce?

Here is what some of the parents you already know have to say about NO:

Firebird - on fire:

Back before Ed Balls accepted the recommendations of the Badman report I’d probably have knocked up an Ed Phil to send to our LA. Not necessary, but you know, for a quiet life and with the clear understanding that it would have been all they were going to get, no annual monitoring rubbish. That was also before the doorstepping incident, which pushed me from politically stirred up and pissed off to really, REALLY pissed off.

Now? Well now I’m not going to play their stupid games at all. Balls hasn’t changed the law yet so they can just …"Bite my shiny metal ass!"

Grit, mother of triplets, lover of fields and maker of felt, tells Graham Badman where to go:

This government should know that I have judgment, I have sense, I have a heart that can break a thousand times over and I will have strength in me to mend it again and again and again.

But I cannot for the life of me understand what motivates this attack of me and mine; what drives this cruel campaign; what informs this frame of reference used to judge me and my choice.

Today it's just another day of standing up and finding the strength to take this on, this hurtful and cruel way of describing me and how I live. I will do that, and I will fight for the choices I make and to keep the way that we live. They are my convictions, my family, our way of life, and no person will shake them.

But sometimes people, you will have to forgive me, or join me, when I climb to the top of this house and scream with all my lungs that you, you destroyer of choice, you corruption to my family, my life, my kids, you attacker of me, of mine, of us,

FUCK YOU.

Elaine G-H, so stirred by recent machinations that she would choose prison over compliance with immoral legislative change:

Considering that this government is intent on making home educators criminals by enforcing their agenda, I am outraged that there is to be no debate. It will force formally law abiding families into breaking the law as we are intent on not consenting to this unwarranted state interference in our private lives. Many of us are prepared to see this as far as being sent to prison.

Heidi, who has Just Said No to Balls:

Whatever your real motives, I SAY NO. I am a middle-aged, middle-class, middle-of-the-road housewife, and you have gone too far. If you make the lifestyle my family has followed for the past seven years illegal, I will be an outlaw. This is my line in the sand, and I will not permit the state to cross it.

Barbara, who has been home educating for decades:

I object in the strongest terms to being required to give an account of myself to the state before being ‘permitted’ to exercise a  legally valid option while fulfilling my parental responsibilities...

The man from the council knows nothing about my children’s  learning needs and his interference will neither be required nor permitted.

I will Just Say No to a forward plan. And I know I won't be alone.

And me? My children are young, and I have much to fight for. I will not compromise in any way and I have explained here what just say no means for me in practice.

Irdial sums up the situation we now find ourselves in:

It is abundantly clear that there are many reasonable people who have been pushed right to the edge. It will only take the slightest breeze to send them over the edge.

The only way this can be avoided is if the entire report is rejected, and no legislation is tabled.

If this does not happen, for certain, a large number of new criminals will be created overnight, and for many people and their children, the idea of representative democracy will be smashed to pieces forever.

And so I will finish with more from Grit:

This government wants you to think only in terms of types. Home educators are on the fringes of a normal society. They want you to eliminate all the shades and tones and nuances, all the people and personalities, all the possibilities. They want you to think in black and white, cut and dried, us and them, divide and rule.

The truth is, home educators are drawn from all society. We are you. We are professors of education, builders, teachers, diplomats, caterers, administrators, doctors, journalists, drivers, artists, visiting scholars, office workers, engineers, managers, cleaning staff, community workers, nurses, lawyers, volunteers, people who run their own business, people who employ others, people who work hard for a wage.

We cannot be picked off, isolated, controlled; we are this society.

Brown, Balls, Badman, Morgan, Atkinson and every single other one of you - you have a serious fight on your hands. We are not just a vociferous minority - we are everyperson, everywhere. 

[Update: a must-read here - Jem's fantastic post analysing some of the best submissions to the Select Committee. It is the quality of the voices, not the quality of the political process, that shines through.]