14% less rain under Brexit

Today is the June solstice, officially marking the first day of summer in the northern hemisphere. Predictably, here in the UK, it's raining.

Not to worry: the Brexit campaign assures us there will be 14% less rain if we leave the EU. Summers will be 17% longer. Furthermore, the force of gravity will be reduced by 3%, meaning any rain that does fall on England's green and pleasant land will fall more softly—just like it did during the Battle of Britain. Better summers for hard-working British families!

Brexit aren't against rain, you understand. Oh no. But enough is enough. Our water-management systems can't cope with all this foreign precipitation. Once we've left the EU, pesky foreign weather-fronts will be prevented from moving into British airspace. British reservoirs for British water!

Don't believe a word of the scaremongering R[em]AIN campaign and their so-called meteorological experts. We are Great Britain.

Union flag

Long may we rain!

Totalitarian secularists? Really?!

Telegraph: Britain being overtaken by 'militant secularists', says Baroness Warsi
British society is under threat from the rising tide of “militant secularisation” reminiscent of “totalitarian regimes”, a Cabinet minister will warn on Tuesday.

No.

These so-called militant secularists merely wish to remove all religious influence from official public life. This is a principle which seems to work reasonably well in other countries, such as the United States of America and France—neither of which, as far as I can see, are reminiscent of totalitarian regimes. Secularism is all about equality.

Secularists do not want to ban religion. What people get up to in their own private lives is up to them. Secularists merely think that it is wrong for the state to treat somebody specially on account of their religion—or absence of religion. For example, in Britain we allow children to be segregated into different state-funded schools on account of the professed faith of their parents. Secularists think this is wrong. Were children so segregated on account of the colour of their skin, it would rightly be called apartheid.

A totalitarian regime, on the other hand, to quote Wikipedia, recogni[s]es no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible (my emphasis added). Totalitarian regimes—like many religions—try to control what you get up to in private.

A totalitarian secularist regime is a contradiction in terms.

The innocent have nothing to fear (except false positives)

Observer: Put young children on DNA list, urge police

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain's most senior police forensics expert.

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

'If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,' said Pugh. 'You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.'

(My emphasis added.)

That is one hell of an if, if I may say so, Gary. But I suspect you already know that. Exactly what percentage of experts is 'some experts'? How do you define an expert? When you say these experts 'believe', do you mean they have actual scientific proof, or do you mean that they believe in the same way that some people believe in Father Christmas, that there is a god, or that there are fairies at the bottom of their garden?

Why are you spouting this dangerous nonsense, Gary? Haven't you read The Mismeasure of Man?

What's your real agenda, Gary?

(Is this the sort of debate you had in mind?)