Questions, many questions about the whole sordid affair

It's almost a certainty that the entire chain of events, from the announcement of a review into home education by the DCSF back in January 2009 to the defeat of Clause 26 in the House of Lords in April 2010, was masterminded for a particular purpose in mind - and that purpose was not child protection. There are many questions that need answering including:

Is the NuLab government frightened that HE is becoming too popular and presents a threat to the existence of the state school system, complete with its state indoctrination under the guise of the NC? Was it a project to make a fortune for Graham Badman? Was it social engineering from authoritarian and Marxists factions of Labour who believe that children are property of the state and must attend school? Was it through fear and anger from schools and teaching unions that the increasing number of home educated children will cause schools to close down and teachers to lose their jobs? Was it initiated by the EU as part of the Lisbon Treaty?

Whether we will find answers to them will be another thing.

One question that overshadows many is were we really successful at defeating the HE sections of the CSF bill or were we just lucky that they were defeated in the wash-up because of the timings of the bill and the general election? I think it is undeniable that the tremendous efforts of the HE community over the past year raised much awareness of HE in the House of Lords, and to a lesser extent, the House of Commons. If this level of awareness hadn't been raised then it is possible that Clause 26 would have passed through the wash-up rather quietly, but if the government had another year to go, then would Balls and co. have ridden roughshod over us and the Lords and ensured that Clause 26 became law rather quickly?

My gut feeling is that the EU was behind it from the outset and the government used allegations of child abuse as a smokescreen. Did you notice that question 2 on the public consultation mentioned the five Every Child Matters outcomes? Investigations have revealed that many sections of the document LISBON EUROPEAN COUNCIL 23 AND 24 MARCH 2000: PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS echo the points of the ECM programme.

I definitely think it was the filthy work of either the EU or Common Purpose.

The official government line on the ECM programme, including the Contactpoint database, is that it originated from ideas contained in Lord Laming's 2003 Victoria Climbie Inquiry. This inquiry certainly did contain those ideas, but if it really is true that the ECM programme originates in the Lisbon Treaty then the Victoria Climbie Inquiry is being used to fool the British public into thinking that the leigislation had come from Westminster rather than the EU.

I don't trust the Conservatives any more than I trust Labour when it comes to defending the rights of HE from the EU because they are 100% committed to remaining in the EU for eternity. The General election 2010 - Party policies on home education makes it clear that "the defence of the rights of home educators, comes from personal statements of individuals rather than official policy statements of the party". I take the lack of official policy statements to be a warning sign that their alleged support for HE and their Lords defeating Clause 26 is more of a political stunt to win support from the HE community shortly before a general election rather than a long term commitment. Plenty of HE parents around my way have announced their intention to vote Conservative in the general election because of policies relating to HE. Notice how the parties which are most committed to supporting HE are all anti-EU.