Am I the only one who’s noticed the way this phrase “in the public interest” is being twisted? There is a subtle but significant difference between that which is in the public interest, and that in which the public is interested.? The former is about informing our democratic processes, and giving us the information we need to make intelligent choices about issues that affect us collectively.? The latter is about titillating whatever desire we might have to rubber-neck at things which might affect us not at all, but we want to know all about anyway.? As a rule of thumb, I’m guessing that anything at all that appears in Closer magazine is more about interesting the public than public interest.

Nobody else gets the photos of their mother’s car crash in glorious technicolour on Channel 4, nor would they wish to, is all I’m saying.? And what’s more, the media moguls who are blurring the definition of the phrase in these situations are not idiots.? They know precisely what they are doing.

Are you humming the tune, now?

Say what you like about Tony, and people seem to take an increasing pleasure in doing so, I can’t help feeling that today saw the departure of the best Prime Minister of my lifetime, and by a country mile.? Admittedly, I’m not that old, considering that two of the PMs of that period were in office for over a decade each,? but nevertheless, I’m sorry to see him go.

As he more or less said himself, in his speech this afternoon, it wasn’t a mistake-free ten years, but I still basically believe in the man’s integrity, and his desire to do the right thing.? The likelihood of there being anyone else in British politics at the current moment about whom I could say the same, seems depressingly slim.? I can’t shake off the feeling that any successor at all is unlikely to be an improvement.

The Today programme did a piece, this morning, on home education.? It wasn’t exactly news, more of a filler to act as relief against all the “will the children get a place at their chosen school?” hype of the week.

Several things struck me.? One was that it wasn’t exactly balanced.? I mean, it was, in the sense that they had a pre-recorded bit with a home educating family, talking about what they do and how it works for them, but not much about why they do it, or their relationship with the authorities.? Then they did a John Humphrys vs interviewee bit, with a chap called Tony Mooney, who described himself as an “inspector” of home education for “a couple of” local authorities.

The chap was pretty negative.? He implied, but didn’t say outright, that the relatively light legislative touch on the subject was the source of no end of problems, and should be fixed ASAP.? He certainly suggested that the vast majority of home educators are deceiving the authorities, as an alternative to court over a persistent truant. De-register the child, and the problem goes away - I can imagine it works pretty well, actually, particularly if you’re dealing with an older teenager.? It takes a certain amount of time to conclusively demonstrate that you’re not providing an education, and if the child in question is already fourteen or fifteen, there’s every reason to hope that they’ll be too old for anyone to care before the situation is brought to a head.

However, the “inspector” chap (and I suspect the seasoned political types in the HE community would want to discuss that title…) followed this up with the information that (due to the lamentable weakness of the law) he sees most of the families on his list just once a year, unless there is believed to be a serious problem with the educational provision, in which case it might be as often as every two months.? So, erm, yeah, you spend six times as long with what Humphrys was pleased to call “a problem family” as you do with the people who are just getting on with it.? Perhaps that skews your perception of the problem just a little?? For every “problem” family you deal with, you’re fitting six ordinary home educators into your week.

I have it on the authority of a source I’m choosing not to name, that there is a rise in the number of truants being encouraged to de-register from school, and declare themselves home educated - and that this is partly as a result of encouragement to do so by Educational Welfare Officers, who would deny any such conversation if asked.? Behind closed doors, though, the LA in that area are mending their truancy stats by getting truants off the school register.? If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, I suppose.? Apparently, there is also a notable parish priest in the area, who is similarly encouraging families to pursue this route - presumably on the basis that forced attendance for a child who can’t bring himself to face going, and a court for the parents, benefits the family as a whole not one bit.

The second thing that struck me, is that if the fairly robust legislation about obliging registered pupils to attend hasn’t worked, to the point that the family have de-registered the child rather than get into serious trouble, why does this chap think that increased legislation regarding home education will help? What looks to him like a parental cop-out, and a sinister ploy to dodge the rule of law, looks to me like a way for parents who are struggling to cope with their teens anyway, to avoid a series of events which will only make life worse for everyone involved.? The child is going to get no worse an education through a lack of home education than s/he was already getting through a lack of attendance at school.? In the meantime, beefing up the rules has a significant impact on home educators who are conscientiously doing the job to the best of their ability, but whose ability might well be encumbered by the new levels of bureaucracy required.? It would completely fail to solve the problem, whilst targeting the wrong people.

Then again, I feel the same way about the Children’s Database, Identity Cards, and most of the anti-terror legislation.

It also occurred to me that since this Mooney chap inspects for “a couple” of local authorities, that makes him a contractor, which in turn could well mean that he gets lumped with all the awkward cases.? His perception of the ratio of “problem” cases to other home educators may be far from accurate anyway.

At the end, when pushed, the most positive thing he could find to say about home education was that it was too much like hard work, and he couldn’t be induced to attempt it.? Well, maybe he lacks the commitment, but that’s no reason to try and stop other people from having a go.

In short, I wasn’t very impressed.? There’s a moral panic rising up about home education at the moment, and I expect the BBC to be able to see past the cheap ratings to the fact that the only real research available says it’s a good thing.

I’ve noticed a thing.

When I was a child, the received wisdom of the time was that it was much better to get your traditional childhood illnesses before you were about eleven, because lots of them (I’m thinking of mumps and chicken pox, particularly) were much worse if you got them when you were older.

At some point, that wisdom has been replaced by the belief that it’s better still to get them before you’re five, because you don’t want to miss a fortnight of school for them. Erm, is it me, or are children under five particularly vulnerable to all kinds of things, and best protected as far as is humanly possible from as much disease as possible?

Admittedly, there’s only really chicken pox left - Daisy’s been vaccinated against almost everything else. But really, why on earth would I want my toddler to be laid low with chicken pox at such a young age, if it could wait till she’s eight, and a bit more robust?

My theory is that it’s tied in with universal childcare. People always did console themselves with the statement “It’s better that they get it now…” What they haven’t quite noticed is that children get all these things in nursery at 18 months of age, now, and that there is a lower limit beyond which it’s not better. The only thing worse than a sick child is a sick baby - and even if it’s not serious, and won’t do them any long term harm, it’s a miserable thing to have to deal with, for both the child and the parent. And maybe, just maybe, the rare complications of chicken pox will hit this particular toddler when they’re still too vulnerable to handle it.

I am, of course, flooded with them, though I’m a bit less rabidly psychotic than I was a couple of weeks ago. At the moment, they’re taking the form of apocalyptic fantasies - and not fun ones. I seem to be spending all my time worrying about something terrible happening, and Daisy being left all alone to cope with it. What am I thinking, bringing children into the world, when within their lifetime the odds are, the sea levels will rise, most of the land will be flooded, the oil will run out, and the world will descend into anarchy and open warfare over the production of food and drinking water, never mind anything else?

And if that doesn’t happen, some massive terrorist thing will come along and wipe out half the city/country/continent, creating a similar post-apocalyptic survival situation for her. The world’s going to hell in a handcart, and poor Daisy will have to survive in it. And there’s nothing I can do to protect her, except get cavity wall insulation. And some cavity walls to put it in.

I may need to monitor my media input a little more carefully. I’m not sure I’m doing myself any favours by listening to Radio 4 at the moment.

The age of consent is sixteen in this country - why does the government treat anyone under twenty who chooses to have a child as a social pariah? Are we not physically best primed to do it then, rather than waiting till we’re all thirty? And do they really think that they can legislate so that sixteen and seventeen year olds can legally marry and have children, but not be allowed to leave school?