And answers to questions and challenges - I rather think promoting "hate of a minority group" is a bit pejorative and a tad on the hysterical side."

 No it's not, not at all, have you noticed how much is in the news right now about a child let down by social services many years ago. A child about whom there is no SCR, a child whose parents have not been prosecuted. 

It is duplicitous, the child was not hidden, he was let down an neglected by the state. The parents were not prosecuted so it is not obvious that it was abuse, it is sad and perhaps support could have made a difference but the social work dept did not know the law around their own job. They failed a child that had been reported to them, they had every power to insist on seeing the child but they didn't bother. Nothing to do with education but everything to do with poor quality badly trained social workers. 

It is manipulation to distract from authority failings, many many

And they want to meddle in home education rather than improve the poor services that failed him. Doing so would fail him again and all children who die because of incompetent and poorly trained child protection agencies. 

It is a con to make them look like they are doing something but that something wouldn't touch on the actual problem, it would remove attention and funding from it. If you were a home educator you would know that these unwarranted attacks are constant and always with no actual evidence. 

 It is immoral and promoting wasting money direly needed by LAs like Pembrokshire to properly train their social workers or recruit people capable of learning. It is politically motivated, and promoted by agencies like the NSPCC who have been trying to get control of us for years using lies and manipulation seeing a rent seeking and mission creep reward.

All these SCRs in 2016 and the NSPCC push for registration and monitoring because of 7 over 6 years involving home education where every single one was a known child let down by government agencies just as this child was.

And they know this because they have published them all. 

Starting to put some of my comments made on media discussing registration of home educators here, this is for those who have swallowed The Badman Report whole.

Graham Badman's report was thoroughly debunked by far sharper minds than his including Graham Stuart in the select committee inquiry into the report.

 Q13 Mr. Stuart: In any case in which a child is known to be on a child protection plan, will it, by necessity, mean that that child is known to the local authorities?

Graham Badman: Yes.

 Q14 Mr. Stuart: So, if the numbers that were formally known about were approximately double your best estimate, it would take us back to almost precisely where we started, at the average of the population as a whole.

Graham Badman: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

 "Q15 Mr. Stuart: Well, if there are twice as many children in home education than are formally known about, which by definition includes all those for whom there is a child protection plan, it would suggest that, roughly speaking, you were back to 0.2% of the home-educated population having a child protection plan, which would put them in line with the national average.

Graham Badman: I think that it propels the figures the other way. It would actually make the proportion higher, because they are already included in the overall population and in the subset of the population, which would mean that the percentage will be fractionally higher. It works the other way."

Worrying that he was a maths teacher in a previous life.

"AFTER the report had been issued and roundly criticized by home educators, Badman conducted a third survey of LEAs to try to get a larger sample size.  Badman claimed that this third sample was representative, but Stafford argues that it in fact was biased toward urban areas.  Stafford here pulls out all the stops, for his concern is not so much about what all this means for home education but that government policy is being made on such flimsy grounds."

I could produce many many other links, the report was trying to produce policy based evidence and used quotes in a very misleading and dishonest way.

This is the submission by the church of england.

"24 Our submission was, naturally, designed to be read as a whole, but following the publication of Graham Badman's report, officers in the Education Division were disappointed with the impression left by the selective use of our submission.

25 We are concerned that the quotation from our submission used in the report appeared to have been selected to support the terms of reference of the review, which, whilst acknowledging that parents have a well-established right to educate their children at home and indicating that the Government had no plans to change that position, appeared overly concerned with the possibility of home educating being a cover for abuse, barriers to safeguarding responsibilities and possible changes to the regime of monitoring and support of LAs.

26 In fact, we specifically stated that in making prevention of abuse under the cover of home education the main reason for the Review has the effect of tarnishing the reputation of the many parents who choose to home education their children from the best of motives."

Even the police are not allowed to force a child to see them alone, social workers are only allowed to with evidence of harm.  To allow council workers with no training in either home education or child welfare to have the same power would be very dangerous and open to abuse. 

There is nothing in the law around home education that stops social services doing their job, a register would not help when social services already know that the child exists and have been warned about it and do not act on the information.