That risk of abuse question
In his report Badman said
To return to the two questions posed earlier [First, if there is abuse of children within the home education community, is it disproportionally high, relative to the general population? Secondly where abuse does exist, would a change of regulation with regard to elective home education have either prevented or ameliorated such abuse?]. First, on the basis of local authority evidence and case studies presented, even acknowledging the variation between authorities, the number of children known to children’s social care in some local authorities is disproportionately high
relative to the size of their home educating population.
“Known to children’s social care” as many people have pointed out, is NOT the same as being abused, or even at risk of abuse and Badman KNOWNS this. He also knows that the number of children known to any LA is not the number in the local HE population so any percentage he cares to quote is distorted. This twisting of words and comparing apples and oranges is not a mistake it is designed to mislead. Of course, with a predetermined outcome there’s not much else he could do as the figures which he got, far from supporting his argument, show that HE children are less at risk not more.
The more I read the more I wonder how Graham Badman can sleep at night. The only explanation I’ve come up with so far, other than serious mental illness, is that he is so utterly invested in the system, so closed off to any alternative that he has convinced himself that the ends justify the means. It’s OK to lie, to twist and deceive, to slander and be ten kinds of slimy little weasel if he’s ’saving’ children from home education.