UK 2017: May Loses the Unloseable Election

I’ve been rather quiet about the snap-election called in the United Kingdom that took place on June 8. This was for two reasons: (1) it was completely unnecessary and was a contradiction by Prime Minister Theresa May who had promised not to call an election, and (2) I was terrified, UK Labour under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn was polling very poorly and under unwarranted media scrutiny. It looked like a disaster was on the cards.

The campaign was fascinating, the UK Conservative Party was able to squander a 20% lead in the polls to a 2.3% lead on voting day, while Corbyn led UK Labour to their best result since the early Blair years. It was the result those of us on the left had hoped for, but didn’t hope for too strongly given the past heartbreaks we’ve endured. There’s a few points that I would like to raise from the whole event

Labour’s messaging was superb, from the leaked manifesto which offered policies that appealed to marginalised Britons, to turning the “weak on security” meme back onto the Tories with their criticism of spending cuts to police and fire services. The Labour result was extraordinary, the vote share was now up to 40%, with 12.9 million votes, which eclipses Milliband’s result from the 2015 election.

Thus Corbyn’s position as Labour leader is now secure and there is no prospect of a leadership challenge, with the exception of the moronic Chris Leslie who had another go with the now discredited Blairite slogans. I was always a fan or Corbyn, like Bernie Sanders in the USA, he had the potential to redefine politics with his straight-talking decency. I was impressed by his substance over style manner and how he would relay questions from the public during PMQs. I can think of no better representatives for the people than Corbyn and those who follow his example.

It was amusing to see right-wingers give themselves whiplash by shifting the goalposts following Corbyn’s better than expected result. Firstly he was criticised because he would lead Labour to a humiliating defeat. When he does well enough to strip the Tories of their majority, he is criticised for not winning. Such analysis focuses on the 56 seat gap lead the Tories have while ignoring that this is a distortion caused by the FPP system. If the seats were allocated by PR, then the gap would only be 15 seats which doesn’t look like a great victory? It comes as no surprise that right-wingers choose to ignore FPP distortions as it benefits their party and demonstrates their contempt for democracy when it doesn’t go their way.

There’s another great irony in this result. One of the most common criticisms of MPP, the electoral system used in my home country of New Zealand is that minor parties hold undue influence when forming a coalition with a major party. This was predicted to bring economic ruin (which hasn’t happened) by failed finance ministers and corporate robber-barons. FPP was praised for producing strong governments with working majorities, even though it screwed the will of the people. MMP was derided for allowing the “tail to wag the dog”. And lo, here we have an FPP election that produces that exact result!

To hold on to power, the Tories look set to do a deal with the corrupt, wasteful retrogrades known as the Democratic Unionist Party. This leads to all kinds of problems in terms of the Northern Irish peace process and concessions that will be unpopular in the UK. May’s hold on the Tory leadership is also weakened, although nobody seems interested in replacing her. Time will tell whether this government can last, or if a new election will be held. So long as Labour doesn’t trigger it (parties causing unnecessary elections seems to be unpopular), they are well placed to win next time around, although post-election polling is still thin on the ground at the time of writing.

Most importantly, this is a huge defeat for vapid centrism, the prevailing line of thought in 21st century centre-left social democratic political parties the world over. Their obsession with the vague concept of electability has been demonstrated to be a falsehood. It’s no longer good enough to be “not as bad” as the lunatics occupying the political right-wing, now is the time to make a positive case for popular left policies in a way that involves the public. Now is the time for Jeremy Corbyn.

Formula Fusion: My Impressions

It was a sad day when Sony closed down Studio Liverpool in 2012, the games developer who had produced highly regarded titles such as the early to mid 2000s Formula One games (but not the abomination that was F1 Grand Prix for PSP) and the WipEout series. The WipEout games were futuristic hovercraft racing games, where players piloted anti-gravity (AG) craft around a variety of challenging circuits. The games were particularly unique for their electronic soundtracks and superb visual design that extended to AG craft sponsors and advertising around tracks. For me the portrayal of the future in the WipEout series was alluring , the racing was frenetic, and to this day WipEout Pure remains my favourite video game of all time.

The closure of SL means that there are no more installments in the WipEout series. In its place similar games such as BallisticNG or RedOut have been released. Joining them is Formula Fusion. Formula Fusion makes a convincing claim to assume the mantle of spiritual successor to the WipEout series; R8 Games has ex-Studio Liverpool staff and The Designers Republic was involved with the graphic design. While it has been in development for a while and I have been playing the early-access version for a few months already, June 1 marked the release of the full version. Below, I’ll list my impressions of the game, starting with the positives:

  • The graphics are superb, the craft and track assets are very well resolved (I’m playing with “high” settings). The sense of speed is immense as surroundings whizz by when I boost down the straights of Midtown at 600 km/h. I also enjoy the glare when I exit the tunnel in Niagara.
  • The ships have very different personalities. The Vixen is a good all rounder, with predictable turning behaviour, the Sabre feels more “pointy” and I can dart it about to get onto speed-up/pick-up pads. The Python is very floaty and slow to respond, so forward planning is needed to keep it out of the wall. Such diversity in ship handling is good, it allows players to work with a ship that suits them and introduces an element of strategy where ship benefits and drawbacks need to be weighed against each other.
  • Customisation. The ship skins can be changed (without any microtransactions, take note Frontier) and modifications can be made to make the ships faster, handle better or give them superior offensive/defensive capabilities.
  • Race results. This was a weak part of the WipEout games that I played. You never got to see the results at the end. This is addressed in Formula Fusion, the results are given in real time and at the end of the race. Furthermore, the lap times of each AG-craft are displayed in bar-graph form making it easy to identify how I compare to my opponents.
  • Replays. These can be set to auto-save and can be viewed under the “Records” section. When viewing the replay, you can switch between the AG-craft and camera views. You can even change the zoom and orientation of the camera in one of the modes. This feature is great for making videos to share online, or reliving past glories.
  • Game Modes: The elimination mode isn’t anywhere near as fun as the similarly named mode in WipEout Pulse, which was all about racking up kills. Here it is the more traditional “last place is eliminated each lap” approach. The endurance mode is interesting. The shield/health drains at an increasing rate as the laps go by, the challenge is to go as far as possible before the ship explodes. This requires a balance between outright speed and collecting shield pick-ups to prolong your time on the track.
  • Double Boosting. Fly between two adjacent speed-up pads and you can get twice the boost compared to going over a single pad. This feature is useful for speed runs, race strategy and improving the precision of one’s piloting.

Now for some negative aspects:

  • The game isn’t as smooth as it should be. There are jitters in the frame rate, which is an issue when precise movements are needed. This was improved by a patch released not long after the release of the game, but it still isn’t perfect.
  • The music seems quite dull and repetitive. More variety in this area would make things more interesting.
  • There was a cockpit view during early-access, but this isn’t in the game now. While I wouldn’t use it, it was nice to have the option. From what I can tell, it will be back in a later update.

All-in-all, Formula Fusion is a welcome addition to my SSD. I don’t bring out the PSP to play WipEout much anymore, so it’s great to have something that can run on my PC. From a graphic design and lore point of view, it offers a fresh break while demonstrating the same attention to detail that endeared the WipEout franchise to me. The ships are great fun to pilot and the tracks are well-designed and very rewarding to fly when one gets everything right. That feeling and new content including free tracks and craft will keep me coming back to Formula Fusion for a long time to come.

Here’s a video of what it’s like to play:

Apologies for the pixelated appearance, I’m new to video capture. I recorded the gameplay with OBS, the footage looked great. Then I had to truncate it in Blender, which is where the quality was lost. With practice, I’ll hopefully find some better settings.

Elite Dangerous: Going to “The View” and NSV 1056

I’ve been able to get a little more time in Elite Dangerous, the space exploration/trading/combat game that I’ve written about before. The latest update (2.3) was released a couple of weeks ago. There are now megaships and asteroid bases in the game, which are little more than rehashed stations. There is another passenger liner ship called the Dolphin, which is great fun to fly. Players can now join other players ships with the multicrew feature.

While very exciting in principle, multicrew has been very poorly implemented, with a combat focus. There is an exploration mode, but there is nothing for crew players to do but watch, e.g. they can’t use SRVs. The lack of things for crew to do stems from the lack of things for pilots to do while exploring apart from scanning systems, scanning objects and stumbling across points of interest on barren planetary surfaces. One can hope that the developers will get around to adding more gameplay sooner rather than later. I had a go with multicrew and my computer crashed after a minute of sitting in someone else’s ship. As with the rest of the game, Frontier needs to spend more time fixing the cause of these problems.

There is also a avatar creator, which is a bit of a lark. I tried to make a version of myself, but it looks like a fuzzy memory of myself in a mirror. Still handsome enough to pass muster. Other players have complained about the lack of body types (with a focus on certain areas in particular). The developers would do well to ignore these strange demands and focus on actual gameplay.

The avatar creator does highlight one of my biggest qualms about Elite Dangerous and modern gaming in general: microtransactions, where users have to pay for additional content. I’m an old-fashioned kind of guy, who remembers when you could pay for a game once and that was it. Sometimes there was free downloadable content (DLC), sometimes there wasn’t. Some of my favourite examples were:

  • BMW M Roadster and M Coupe additions to Need for Speed: High Stakes.
  • Porsche 928GTS, 959 and 911 GT2 and GT3 additions to Need for Speed: Porsche 2000.
  • The Classic2, Delta  and Gamma packs for WipEout Pure (the best game in all of human history), which nearly doubled the amount of tracks and craft available in game. There was also the Omega pack, but I found it so disturbing that I removed it from my Memorystick.

Things started to go downhill afterwards, some examples of paid DLC that I stumped up for were: the megapack for Test Drive Unlimited, which added ~45 cars to drive around Oahu; and the add-ons to WipEout Pulse*, which weren’t as plentiful as those in Pure. Elite Dangerous takes this to an obscene level, your ship is available in one colour, unless you pay for more skins for your ship. You have to pay to change the colour of the ship laser beams. You have to pay for avatar flight suits and tattoos.

Update 2.3 (which is DLC in itself) then took this to an even more ludicrous level with ship naming. Sure, you can name your ship. But if you to display it on the exterior, you have to purchase a name plate with real money! This is pathetic, they advertise features coming to paid DLC which are only fully available as a further microtransaction. Disgusting!**

In my last Elite Dangerous post,  I travelled ~12 kLY to a pair of binary Earth-likes orbiting a neutron star. Following that, I decided to take a shorter passenger mission, this time to “The View”. Now this has nothing to do with the homonymous daytime television show The View. From the mission description it was not very clear what “The View” is. It was only 1000 LY away; after about 25 hyperspace jumps, I was there.

It turns out that “The View” is just an area of extreme natural beauty. An O-class star and a neutron star nearby each other. There is a tourist installation below (or above?) the neutron star, where I took the animation below using what is probably one of the best parts of 2.3: the camera suite.


My ship isn’t actually in the ejection cone of the neutron star. The camera can now be easily moved to the right place. Think of it as one of those “holding up the Leaning Tower of Pisa” photographs that annoying tourists take.

To finish the mission, I had to scan the appropriate tourist beacon. Unfortunately, it was on a 3.3g planet! I had to face my high gravity world fears to get to the beacon. I took it steady and came in to land like an aeroplane. I managed to land successfully, although I overshot the beacon by 65 km! I can see why they call it “The View”, there’s an O-Class star, a neutron star and a planetary ring all in one image.

Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 26_04_2017 10_44_22 PM

Once I had spent enough time looking at “The View” and taking jumps in the SRV (the boosters don’t get you very high obviously), it was time to leave. This isn’t as easy as one would expect. Pointing away from the planet and boosting would probably cause a crash at high g. I targeted a system just above the horizon, lifted off with vertical thrusters and slowly gained altitude. I yawed towards the target and then charged up the hyperdrive, which generated a lot of heat close to the planetary surface and set off all kinds of alarms, but I made it and jumped into the safety of hyperspace. To make it less stressful, I could have picked a system at a lower elevation angle before I launched.

It was then an uneventful series of jumps back to Conway dock, where I got to pocket a mission reward of several million credits.  Another tantalising mission was already available on the list. This time the trip would take me to a planetary nebula, NSV 1056. The tourist beacon was orbiting a volcanic moon. Once I had travelled further away from the system, I could get a better view of the planetary nebula. A pleasing radial iris of orange and blue.

Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 19_05_2017 11_27_59 PM

Want to know what it looks like on the inside? There’s a Wolf-Rayet star at the centre which I can jump to. Here’s the view from inside: It reminds me of the ripple patterns you can see looking at an outdoor swimming pool on a bright sunny day.

Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 19_05_2017 11_32_58 PM

And that’s just two places, there’s a whole Milky Way of wonders to travel to. These trips illustrate why I like the passenger missions, they are not combat focused, show off the best looking parts of the galaxy and they pay well. For all of the faults with update 2.3, passenger missions are well served by the new Dolphin ship and the improved camera suite. Frontier is annoyingly vague about what update 2.4 will bring. Atmospheric planets and bug fixes would be nice, but I know that is wishful thinking.

*In Pulse, you could even design ship liveries online and download them to your system. For free!
**As a protest, I have given my ships names such as No Microtransactions!, Not Paying for Extras and I Like Free Stuff. There’s also a 22 character limit, which is simply not enough for fans of Iain M. Banks.

Why does the Maxim Institute Hate Democracy?

Earlier this month, the Maxim Institute, a far-right think tank based in Auckland published an article about the urban/rural divide in New Zealand.The institute has done some “research” that indicates that there are differences in lifestyles and attitudes between regions in New Zealand. They forecast that a greater proportion of the population will live in urban centres (70% in 30 years time). Strangely the institute chooses to frame this as a problem:

That’s a lot of urban voters, and it’s going to be very tempting for politicians to focus more and more on urban interests in order to win those votes, possibly at the expense of the rest of the country.

It could also make it easier for urban voters to ignore or mock the interests of voters living in very different communities.

I don’t see the problem. If the vast majority of the population lives in urban areas, then it is only right that politicians focus on urban interests. That’s democracy in action. It’s also assuming that policy development is a zero-sum game. This is not strictly true, a policy designed to help urban dwellers does not necessarily harm rural dwellers.

Let’s also keep in mind that the opposite situation exists at present. Politicians already prioritise property owners and corporations at the expense of ordinary people. Policies such as irrigation schemes and the dilution of water quality standards are designed to benefit rural voters while harming the interests of the wider public. Why doesn’t the Maxim Institute write about these issues instead of this one that they made up?

It’s worth mentioning that the urban-rural divide is a cornerstone of political analysis in USA, where it plays a massive factor in elections. Donald Trump can credit the urban/rural divide with handing him the presidency that he didn’t deserve. The electorate is divided into a series of winner-take-all states where the number of electors is not proportional to the state populations. Narrow victories in swing states and the over-representation of small rural states turned a 2.7 million vote deficit into a 77 vote surplus in the electoral college. By preserving and accentuating a bias in favour of rural areas, the American right-wing have been able to engineer electoral victories in the face of popular defeats.

When we keep this in mind, the motives behind the Maxim Institute’s article become much more sinister. They don’t say it, but it is implicit that they think that the electoral system should be redesigned. I imagine they would want something less proportional, like FPP that favours rural constituencies. Never mind that FPP has been rejected by the public twice during the past two and a half decades.  While they may cry crocodile tears about their contrived decline in rural areas, this is all about securing right-wing power over New Zealand for years to come.

As things stand NZ has a very proportional voting system. There is no reason for this to ever change. If the increase in the numbers of urban voters is a problem for the political right, the problem is with them, not with the voters and not with the electoral system. If this is typical of the standard of work that the Maxim Institute is producing, urbanisation should be the least of their worries.

Blasphemy in New Zealand: Scrap the Law Now!

Like many the world over, I have enjoyed the wit of Stephen Fry in great shows such as Blackadder and QI to name just two. Moreover, I enjoy much of Fry’s socio-political commentary, such as his famous interview with RTÈ in 2015. Here, he raised a concept that many atheists have considered: the idea that if God were real, then he/she/they are irredeemably cruel for either enabling or failing to prevent the misery experienced by people throughout space and time (see problem of evil). Christian apologetics such as “blessings in disguise” , “free will”, “original sin”, or “punishment for things” are unconvincing and churlish.

In the 2015 RTÈ interview, Fry described God as “capricious, mean-minded and stupid” and “a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish”. Well put. It turns out that Fry was reported to the police for blasphemy and an investigation is to be conducted. Much outrage has ensued, including in the Guardian comment section, where my alter ego earned 299 upvotes (a new record, beating my last record where I called for a coup d’etat in Turkey). In an era where free-speech whingers are becoming louder and louder, such an uproar was to be expected. Blasphemy is an absurd concept. It assumes that there is a universal standard for what is acceptable speech and that deviation from this standard warrants punishment. Neither of those things are true. Blasphemy laws serve no purpose other than to suppress the opponents of state power and the leaders of the majority religion, entrenching the privileges that the rich and powerful enjoy.

The constitution of the Irish Republic (1937) mandates that blasphemy must be a criminal offence (pg 160 of the convenient online PDF version). The Defamation Act of 2009 gave a statutory definition for blasphemy. In order to strike the law from the constitution, a referendum must be held. You may remember that a successful referendum to amend constitution was held in May 2015 to introduce same-sex marriage. The same needs to be done to remove the blasphemy law.

While many are still worried about faux-populist retrogrades derailing the removal of blasphemy (e.g. like voting for Brexit or Trump), a law which allows the religious to claim offence on the basis of hurt feelings should be even less controversial than same-sex marriage. Luckily the Fine Gael minority government has plans to introduce such a referendum. I’m confident the Irish voters will get this one right too.

Meanwhile in New Zealand: The corporate media and some ignorant politicians were shocked to discover that NZ has its own blasphemy law. All they had to do was look it up on Wikipedia! It originated from English common law (thanks British colonialism!) and was then added to the Crimes Act of 1961, where only the Attorney General may push for a prosecution. Only one prosecution has ever taken place, which failed. Since free speech is protected in the Bill of Rights Act 1990, Attorneys General decline to engage in blasphemy prosecutions.

One might wonder what’s the harm? That’s not good enough. We should not assume that Attorneys General will always act with decency and pragmatism. The BORA would be one of the first targets that a hypothetical far-right government would seek to remove (my guess would be that the BORA would be framed as “PC gone mad”). Then there is scope to tie opposing voices up in blasphemy cases, allowing for the government to cement it’s grip on power. In the same way that we do not leave matches lying around for children and arsonists to set things in fire, we should not leave bad laws around for those with ill intent to terrorise us.

To his credit, Prime Minister Bill English (the Valtteri Bottas of NZ politics*) does not think we should have a blasphemy law. That’s pretty good coming from someone who is generally addled by Catholic doctrine. The Herald ran an article where English was disappointingly lax about the repeal, saying it would be part of an omnibus bill getting rid of lots of nonsense laws in one go. The perpetual contrarian Winston Peters played the “I’ll focus on things that matter” card. Labour leader Andrew Little called himslef a “free speech extremist” (rather understandably). Libertarian welfare recipient David Seymour did his best to get a repeal ASAP. The end of the article was interesting, suggesting that the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 could be misused as a blasphemy law. It’s already been used to harass left wing blogs, so I guess we’ll have to watch this space.

Blasphemy has no place in a secular, civilised society (sorry about the tautology). Even having a currently toothless law puts us at risk should a band of fanatical zealots ever take office. Now is the time to strike while public attention is at its peak. Remove the law so that we may continue without fear to expose conservative religion for the dangerous, hateful fraud that it is.

*Following on from my John Key/Nico Rosberg analogy. I wish to extend my apologies to Bottas for comparing him with English. We know that Bottas can win, while English hasn’t.

Let’s Make Magic Water Again!

Previously, I wrote about Te Kiri Gold, an extortionately priced product whose desperate users were told could cure cancer and suchlike. The product in question is no more than electrolysed salt water. I sardonically mused that such a product could be made from the reject stream of the reverse osmosis brine electrodialysis process, such as the one used in a chlor-alkali process designed by a team that I was involved with for an undergraduate project. Because of the low production cost and the attractive pricing, our generic Te Kiri Gold would generate a tremendous amount of revenue!

Recently shared an article about another type of magic water, sold here in good ol’ New Zealand under the label of NZ Water Purifier Ltd. This magic water is different; while TKG was a solution of sodium hypochorite, NZ Water Purifier Ltd is a solution of dissolved chlorine dioxide. Chlorine dioxide should not be consumed by humans, let alone anything living. Funnily enough, it can also be produced by the chlor-alkali process!

During my undergrad project, another team also designed a chlor-alkali plant. They targeted it for use in the pulp and paper industry. A Kraft pulping plant is the perfect companion for a chlor-alkali plant since both the chlorine and NaOH are consumed on-site. Sodium hydroxide is used during the cooking and bleaching operations, while the chlorine is reacted with NaOH to produce sodium chlorate (famous for causing trousers to explode), which is reacted with hydrochloric acid to produce chlorine dioxide, which is the bleaching agent used.  Judging from the leading photo in the article (higher res at the original article at, sodium chlorite and HCl are sold in separate bottles* to mix together at home, or you can buy it pre-mixed for convenience.

Economically, how does this compare to TKG? We can’t use electrodialysis dilutate to produce NZ Water Purifier Ltd because the membrane cell requires highly concentrated brine (250 g/L as opposed to 32 g/L). So instead, lets just dump it back into the ocean and re-purpose the plant to make chlorine dioxide.

I’m not exactly sure about the amount of chlorine dixoide that can be produced, but from a crude analysis of the molar ratios in the chemical reaction equations I think there is a 2:1 ratio of sodium chlorate:chlorine. Thus we are limited by the amount of NaOH produced. There is then a 1:1 ratio of Chlorate:chlorine dioxide. Let’s say that from 90,000 t/y of NaOH, we can make 152,000 t/y of chlorine dioxide. (Note that I’ve ignored the production of HCl, which could be achieved from the remaining chlorine that isn’t used to make sodium chlorate. It becomes chlorine again during the reaction to produce chlorine dioxide anyway). Let’s assume we sell the solution at 25 wt%, then we are making 608,000 t/y of solution. Assuming a density of 1 kg/m³, and $190/L, we have a revenue of $116 million/y. Thus, we can conclude that a plant making Te Kiri Gold was a much better investment at $260 million/y in revenue.

Unlike TKG, this is not a kiwi product. In fact, NZ Water Purifier Ltd is already so infamous, that it has it’s own RationalWiki page (under the name, MMS). Consuming chlorine dioxide is a terrible idea, with some very unpleasant health effects. Beyond the usual aspirations of curing cancer, MMS has lately been marketed to parents of autistic children as a way to “detoxify” them. This is no doubt connected to the anti-vaccination movement, which has demonised autistic people as being “damaged” by vaccines. The level of ableist prejudice among the anti-vaccination and alternative medicine communities is outrageous. It only serves to increase the contempt that I have for them.

Fortunately, Medsafe has issued a warning over the product. Even better, the government has introduced the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill, which regulates the manufacture, sale, and export of “natural” health products and creates new offences for deceptive behaviour and harming human health. It’s currently at the committee stage prior to the third reading. Let’s get the bill passed and close NZ Water Purifier Ltd down.

*The concentrations of sodium chlorite and HCl are unclear. Are they weight percent, or per weight of water? Either way, it looks like sodium chlorite is in excess when the solutions are mixed. The pre-mix is given as 3000 ppm, is this weight, volume or molar? What  a bunch of scientifically illiterate bastards.

Children at Protest Marches? No Problem

This weekend saw people all over the world participate in the March for Science. The march was originally created in response to the alarming anti-science attitudes of US President, Donald Trump and his cabinet of billionaire brigands. In an act of solidarity with scientists in the USA, marches have been organised in many places, including main centres in NZ. There are supplementary issues specific to NZ such as the dismissal of scientific evidence, or the backlash that scientists experience when they speak out in an area that is perceived to be too politicial (see Mike Joy for an example).

I wasn’t able to make it to the march since the nearest one was a few dozen kilometers away and car travel would expose me to criticisms of hypocrisy given the closeness of the march to climate change issues. While reading the report of the march, I was annoyed by some of the commenters who expressed outrage at parents taking their children to the march. Apparently, it’s disgusting to politicise children like that.

Let’s consider a different issue: parents letting children attend religious education in schools. The common line opponents to religion in schools make is: “keep it out of schools. If parents want to raise their children into a religion, then they can do it at home”. One way or another, it is a widely held view that parents are free to raise their children into their religion*, one that I suspect that the commenters would hold.

Given that one accepts that viewpoint, then it is only logically consistent then that parents should also be free to take their children along to participate in a protest march as well. If anything, a protest march is better since it is a one-off event that the children will likely forget about when they are older, while religious indoctrination is persistent.

So ignorant  commenters, do you take you children to church? Or have you not removed them from RE in school? If you have said yes to either of those questions, then according to your own reasoning, you are just as bad, if not worse than the protest marchers that you were so quick to criticise. Good on the people who attended the March for Science, future generations will appreciate that you gave a damn about their future.

*I don’t actually agree that parents are free to raise children into a religion, but that’s for another blog post.